Richard Falk: 'Hamas is het Nederlands verzet uit de Tweede Wereldoorlog'

 

Richard Falk is onlangs uit zijn functie bij Human Rights Watch gezet, na klachten over zijn radikaal antizionistische en zelfs antisemitische uitlatingen. Zo had hij eerder een antisemitische cartoon op zijn weblog staan.

 

Falk schrijft op de website van de Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine naar aanleiding van een speech van Hamas-leider Khaled Meshaal: “It gives perspective to imagine the situation being reversed as it was during the Nazi occupation of France or the Netherlands during World War II. Resistance fighters were uniformly perceived in the liberal West as unconditional heroes, and no critical attention was given as to whether the tactics used unduly imperiled innocent civilian lives. Those who lost their lives in such a resistance were honoured as martyrs. Meshaal and other Hamas leaders have made similar arguments on several occasions, in effect asking what are Palestinians supposed to do in the exercise of resistance given their circumstances, which have persisted for so long, given the failures of traditional diplomacy and the UN to secure their rights under international law.”

 

Het feit dat hij de speciale rapporteur voor de mensenrechten op de Westoever en Gaza is, toont maar weer eens aan hoe weinig serieus we al die VN veroordelingen kunnen nemen. Israel bleef dan ook terecht weg bij het laatste circus in de VN mensenrechtenraad, waar tietnallen dictaturen Israel de maat nemen en elkaar de hand boven het hoofd houden.

 

RP

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

 

‘Hamas is het Nederlands verzet uit de Tweede Wereldoorlog’

VN-rapporteur Falk wekt woede PVV
http://politiek.thepostonline.nl/2013/01/31/hamas-is-het-nederlands-verzet-uit-de-tweede-wereldoorlog/

·         

BAS PATERNOTTE: 31-01-2013 13:06 UUR

De speciale Verenigde Naties -rapporteur voor de mensenrechten in de bezette Palestijnse gebieden Richard Falk vergelijkt de terreurorganisatie Hamas met het Nederlands verzet uit de Tweede Wereldoorlog. De PVV beklaagt zich over de uitspraken bij minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Frans Timmermans (PvdA). Het is niet de eerste keer dat Falk in opspraak is.

Falk schrijft op de website van de Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine naar aanleiding van een speech van Hamas-leider Khaled Meshaal: “It gives perspective to imagine the situation being reversed as it was during the Nazi occupation of France or the Netherlands during World War II. Resistance fighters were uniformly perceived in the liberal West as unconditional heroes, and no critical attention was given as to whether the tactics used unduly imperiled innocent civilian lives. Those who lost their lives in such a resistance were honoured as martyrs. Meshaal and other Hamas leaders have made similar arguments on several occasions, in effect asking what are Palestinians supposed to do in the exercise of resistance given their circumstances, which have persisted for so long, given the failures of traditional diplomacy and the UN to secure their rights under international law.”

PVV: Dit is schokkend

Geert Wilders noemt de vergelijking met Hamas schokkend. “Zijn vergelijking van Hamas, dat zich richt op het doden van burgers, met het Nederlandse verzet dat opkwam tegen een illegale bezetting, is schokkend. Hij moet bij de VN verdwijnen. En Nederland moet niet meer met hem samenwerken.”

Obama-regering is ook klaar met Falk

Falk is al langer in opspraak. In 2011 bood hij zijn excuses aan voor een antisemitische cartoon die hij op zijn weblog had geplaatst.  In oktober vorig jaar nam Susan Rice – Obama’s ambassadeur bij de Verenigde Naties – afstand van Falk die volgens haar de belangen van de VN zou ‘schaden’. De VS, EU en Nederland beschouwen Hamas als een terreurorganisatie.

 

Wat heeft Israel waarom gebombardeerd in Syrië? (IPI)

 

 

Wat heeft Israel waarom gebombardeerd in Syrië?

http://www.israel-palestina.info/actueel/2013/02/02/wat-heeft-israel-waarom-gebombardeerd-in-syrie/

Door Ratna.

Er is nog veel onduidelijkheid over wat Israel precies waar en waarom heeft gebombardeerd in de nacht van dinsdag op woensdag. Er is sprake van bombardementen op een wapenkonvooi bij de grens tussen Syrië en Libanon en van het militaire onderzoekscomplex Jamraya. Israel zelf geeft geen enkele informatie, en heeft de aanvallen ontkend noch bevestigd. Het lijkt duidelijk dat Jamraya is getroffen, zo blijkt ook uit verklaringen van omwonenden:

“We were sleeping. Then we started hearing rockets hitting the complex and the ground started shaking and we ran into the basement,” said a woman who lives adjacent to the sprawling Jamraya site north-west of the Syrian capital.

Deze getuige kon echter niet zeggen of de explosies het gevolg waren van een luchtaanval. Ook anderen bevestigen de aanval op Jamraya:

But diplomats, Syrian rebels and regional security sources said the planes hit a weapons convoy heading from Syria to Lebanon, apparently destined for President Bashar al-Assad’s ally Hezbollah, and the rebels said they – not Israel – hit Jamraya with mortars.

Another source who has a relative working inside Jamraya reported that a building inside the complex had been cordoned off on Wednesday employees believed it had been hit. Flames could be seen rising from the area after the attack, they said.

“It appears that there were about a dozen rockets that appeared to hit one building in the complex,” the source, who also asked not to be identified, told Reuters.

De Syrische rebellen beweren dus dat zij dit complex hebben aangevallen, en hebben ook een officiële verklaring uit doen gaan. Daar staat tegenover dat ‘mensen die Jamraya recentelijk bezochten’ zeggen dat

there had been some attempts to target the tanks with mortars but were not aware of any rebel activity in the last few days.

Het is een groot complex waar ook chemische wapens liggen.

Diplomats in the Middle East familiar with Jamraya described it as a crucial element of Syria’s missile programme, and say it also has a chemical weapons facility. There have been no suggestions any chemical weapons were hit in Wednesday’s strike.

Zie hier voor meer informatie over het complex.

Ook de Syrische rebellen benadrukken het strategische belang ervan:

A statement from the joint military council of the Free Syrian Army described Jamraya as “one of the biggest shabbiha strongholds”, where it said Iranian, Russian and Hezbollah members were helping develop chemical and other weapons including ‘barrel bombs’ used by Assad’s air force.

Het lijkt me onwaarschijnlijk dat de rebellen een dergelijk zwaarbeveiligd complex (volgens de eerder geciteerde waarnemers waren er zelfs recentelijk tanks binnengereden), met een paar mortieren zo zwaar kunnen treffen, dat mensen die er 10-15 km vandaan wonen de grond voelen schudden en naar beneden renden om dekking te zoeken. Anderzijds vind ik het vreemd dat zij een aanval zouden opeisen als ze die niet hebben uitgevoerd. Zouden ze het regime extra schrik willen aanjagen of willen opscheppen? Dat zou kunnen, maar het regime is er naar ik zou denken snel genoeg achter of Israel met haar geavanceerde luchtmacht heeft aangevallen of dat er een brandje is uitgebroken door “six 120 millimetre mortars” die volgens de verklaring van de rebellen zijn afgevuurd.

Volgens Amerikaanse bronnen heeft Israel een wapentransport getroffen dat op weg was naar Libanon met Russische SA-17 anti-vliegtuigraketten, en bestemd was voor Hezbollah. Israel had Amerika op de hoogte gesteld van de actie. Het is niet vreemd dat zowel Hezbollah als Syrië dat ontkennen, want het VN resolutie 1701 verbiedt dergelijke transporten. Zowel Hezbollah, dat het Syrische regime steunt, als Syrië veroordelen de schending van Syrië’s territoriale integriteit. Hezbollah noemt het een ‘barbaarse aanval’ en roept de hele Arabische en islamitische wereld op de ‘nieuwe zionistische agressie’ te veroordelen. Syrië beschuldigt Israel er zelfs van de instigator te zijn van de Syrische opstand. Dat is natuurlijk onzin; Israel heeft geen enkel belang zich in deze strijd te mengen maar wel gewaarschuwd in te grijpen wanneer chemische wapens of andere game changers in handen komen van Hezbollah. Wat dat betreft lijkt het meest waarschijnlijk dat Israel het wapentransport heeft aangevallen, maar ik sluit zeker niet uit dat ook het complex, dat dicht bij de grens met Libanon staat en vanwaar wapens dus vrij snel naar Hezbollah kunnen worden gebracht, ook door Israel is aangevallen.

Het is in ieder geval duidelijk dat we niet te veel waarde moeten hechten aan de verklaringen van het Syrische regime (en bondgenoot Hezbollah), dat er niet bepaald bekend om staat eerlijk en betrouwbaar te zijn, en dat op het moment voor zijn overleven vecht. Toch melden verschillende media de versie van Syrië en Hezbollah, zonder de Westerse versie van het konvooi te geven. Dit deed men overigens in andere artikelen wel. Een paar media vielen in positieve zin op, omdat men zowaar wat begrip kon opbrengen voor Israels aanval, of deskundigen aan het woord liet die dat deden. Niet alleen Israel maakt zich immers zorgen over de verspreiding van chemische wapens en ander geavanceerd wapentuig dat nog in handen is van het Syrische regime. Hezbollah is door Iran via Syrië tot de tanden toe bewapend in schending van resolutie 1701, en het is niet vreemd dat Israel bij de geavanceerde SA-17 anti-vliegtuigraketten een grens heeft getrokken. De Russische veroordeling van Israel is overigens behoorlijk hypocriet. Rusland verkoopt die spullen aan een misdadig regime, wetende dat men al jaren lang wapens naar Hezbollah smokkelt en daarmee het internationaal recht schendt. De zorgen die door Israel hier herhaaldelijk over werden geuit negeerde men, maar wanneer actie wordt ondernomen is natuurlijk Israel de agressor. En dan hebben we het maar even niet over hoe Rusland tegen eigen terroristen en onruststokers optreedt of even liet zien wie er in Georgië en Tsjetsjenië de baas zijn.

De komende tijd zal er wel langzaamaan steeds meer duidelijk worden over de precieze toedracht en achtergrond van de Israelische aanval. De aanval op een Syrische plutonium opwerkingsfabriek in 2007 werd pas maanden later duidelijk.

 

Moeten Joden etnisch gezuiverd worden uit Judea en Samaria (de Westbank)?

 

Sommige Israeli's en sympatisanten spreken van etnische zuivering (en erger) bij de ontruiming van de Joodse nederzettingen in de Gazastrook (2005) en de Westelijke Jordaanoever.

Internationaal-rechtelijk is dat allemaal niet zo zwart-wit. De Israelische regering heeft niemand gedwongen om in de nederzettingen te gaan wonen, maar het wel jarenlang flink aangemoedigd en financieel aantrekkelijk gemaakt.

Bij het referendum in de Westelijke Sahara dat men zo'n 15 jaar geleden probeerde te organiseren over haar mogelijke onafhankelijkheid, was er geen sprake van dat de Marokkaanse kolonisten weg zouden moeten, integendeel: ze zouden zelfs mee mogen stemmen!

Een van de verschillen met Israel is dat men de Joodse nederzettingen als een soort eilandjes in de Westbank heeft gebouwd, waar Israelische wetten gelden. Onzeker is ook hoeveel van deze kolonisten als integraal onderdeel in een Palestijnse staat zouden willen leven, en in hoeverre de Palestijnse Autoriteit hun veiligheid dan zou kunnen en willen garanderen. De meeste Palestijnse leiders en woordvoerders willen de kolonisten weg hebben uit hun gebied, of dat nu antisemitisme is of een 'normaal' onderdeel van het nationale conflict. Een van de punten is ook of de kolonisten rechtmatig eigenaar zijn van de grond waarop ze wonen: sommigen hebben eigendomspapieren, velen huren ook alleen een woning. Al met al een ingewikkelde zaak, ook juridisch, waar vaak al te simpel zwart-wit over wordt gedaan.

Feit is wel dat als de Israelische regering buitenposten of nederzettingen wil ontruimen, de enige rechtmatige aktie voor de kolonisten is om naar een Israelische rechtbank te stappen.

 

Wouter

________________

 

The UN insists that Jews must be ethnically cleansed from Judea and Samaria. Isn't that a crime? 

 

The UN Human Rights Council came out with its report on the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. To no one's surprise, it declared them illegal.

But what is interesting is what they demand be done:

 

Israel must, in compliance with article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, cease all settlement activities without preconditions. In addition it must immediately initiate a process of withdrawal of all settlers from the OPT.

 

Let's look at the Rome Statute:

 

Article 7: Crimes against humanity

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: 

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

 

How is the forcible transfer of Jews away from Judea and Samaria not a crime against humanity?

Even if you say that the Israeli government is guilty of the heinous crime of allowing people to voluntarily move to the land of their forefathers, why are the residents being punished? Isn't this collective punishment? Did they do anything illegal? Geneva only prohibits the "occupying power" to transfer people, it doesn't prohibit the people from doing so voluntarily (more on this below.)

In fact, from a quick survey, it appears that the forcible transfer of an entire population against their will violates a slew of human rights principles if not outright humanitarian laws:

• The right of a people to self-determination
• The right to remain in one's homeland
• The right to individually appeal an expulsion order
• The prohibition against collective punishment

(The UNHRC has a long list of such potential violations [Annex 1], most of which are very tortured in my mind, but it goes to show how much they go out of their way to say that forcible transfers are heinous - unless those being transferred are Israeli Jews.)

Here is a relevant portion of an article in Opinio Juris by Eugene Kontorovich about some of these points:

 

Crucially, the Convention only bars action by the “occupying power” — in other words, the government and public authorities of the country. It does not apply to the movements and real estate decisions of private individuals. Various other parts of the Convention distinguish between “nationals of the occupying Power” and “the occupying power” itself; the prohibitions of Article 49 fall exclusively on the latter.

The birth of babies to civilians – we’re not talking Hitlerian birthing homes – is not a “transfer … of its own population” by any plausible definition. Indeed, the newborn is not even part of the previous population of the occupying power! So a significant proportion of settlers never “settled.”

Nothing in the text or history of Art. 49 suggests that it becomes illegal for nationals of the occupying power to reside in the occupied territory. People want to read Art. 49 as saying “the occupied territory shall be prohibited to nationals of the occupying power for residence.”This is a far cry from what it says. It goes against the GC’s humanitarian principles to read it as a restrictive covenant. The precise meaning of transfer – how much government action is required – is undefined by any source I know of, though the Rome Statute’s addition of an “indirect transfer” prohibition only underlines how absent such language is from Art. 49(6).The relevant Security Council resolutions only condemn “the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements” (S.C. 446). This seems to support my view.

Given the ambiguities about the scope of the transfer ban, one might look to other incidents of state practice to see how such situations were handled. If there is a general rule that an occupation makes not just the “transfers” by the government themselves, but the continued residence of the transferees and their descendants illegal forever, I am surprised we have not heard of it in other contexts. None of the proposals for ending the occupation of Northern Cyprus, Western Sahara, etc. contemplate removing a single Turk or Moroccan, as far as I know. And while there are not any proposals for ending Chinese occupation of Tibet and Russian occupation of Georgia, no one has suggested that the presence of occupying nationals in those countries is a continued violation of international law. Yes, China violates the GC by shipping Han en masse to Tibet to demographically overwhelm the native population. But has even a law professor suggested their deportation back?

When America occupied Iraq, would it have been illegal for Americans of Iraqi ancestry to move back? I believe some did and no one made an issue of it. Would it matter if they flew there on a U.S. plane? If they moved to a neighborhood that people had moved out of as a result of the war? No one was even asking such questions.

All of this means two things. First, there is nothing illegal about nationals of the occupying power residing in the occupied territory if they get there without being sent by the government, without being “transferred.” The scope of this category is unclear but must certainly include those born in the West Bank. Israel has no affirmative obligation to prevent migration, or to deny municipal services to migrants. Second, even those have been transferred are not themselves doing anything illegal.

 

He is more concise in this more recent article:

 

When one reads discussions of Israel and 49(6), the only precedents cited are various statements about 49(6) – in the context of Israel. One might conclude that Israel has been the only significant alleged violator in the post-War period. If there were no other arguable 49(6) cases, then this limitation would be natural.

Our project allows for a more dispassionate look at 49(6) by 1) using multiple independent data points; 2) not focussing on arguably the single most politically controversial situation in the world. Thus to be clear, the research project is NOT about Israel.

Indeed, instead of focusing exclusively on Israel [see Parts VI-IX of the ICRC state practice guide], we study global state practice. In particular, we examine civilian population movements into occupied territory from Morocco, Turkey, Indonesia, and several other cases, and the international legal response to these actions.

Our paper is not finished, as we hope to have a comprehensive survey. What we see so far, as described in my talk above, is that state practice in regards to these migrations fairly uniformly shows that the movement of civilians into occupied territory is not treated as “deportation or transfer” even when it is favored or generally supported by the government. Second, even for migrations directly organized by the government that may violate 49(6), international authorities have never regarded the removal of the “transferred” civilians as the appropriate remedy. On the contrary, U.N.-approved land-for-peace deals leave settlers in place, and often even let them vote on a referendum about the occupied area’s political future.

We see, yet again, that Israel is being treated uniquely by a faux "human rights" body. Of all the occupations or alleged occupations of the world, only one is considered so heinous that the [Jewish] residents - even those born there - must be forced to move. 

The UN Human Rights Council has just officially said that Jews must be ethnically cleansed from Judea and Samaria (there are at least a few Israeli Arabs who live in the territories but they are not being told to leave.) 

Again, I am not a lawyer, but it is clear that the demand to have a specific defined set of people be transferred from their own homes en masse  is something that has never been demanded by any human rights body in any remotely comparable circumstances. In virtually every case of forced transfer, human rights organizations would be the first ones to condemn it. 

Once again, the demands - and even the interpretation of laws - are different for Israel than for every other country.

The hypocrisy would be stunning if we weren't already so used to it.

 

Israelische contraceptie voor Ethiopische vrouwen

 

Een onwaarschijnlijk verhaal dat Israel Ethiopiërs naar Israel zou halen om ze vervolgens stiekem te steriliseren, wordt gretig opgepikt en verder rondgetoeterd door Westerse media, waarvan je je langzaam kunt afvragen of ze erop uit zijn om het nog steeds grotendeels sluimerende antisemitisme aan te wakkeren.

 

Behalve taalproblemen kampt men met een aanzienlijke culturele kloof bij de Ethiopische immigranten in Israel. Velen hadden bijv. nog nooit een toilet gezien en dachten dat het een pot was om de groente in te wassen. Anticonceptie is voor veel Ethopische mannen onbespreekbaar, terwijl de vrouwen er wel voor voelen om niet continu zwanger te zijn en een hele horde kinderen te moeten grootbrengen. Kortom zijn er allerlei redelijke motieven te bedenken waarom vooral Ethiopische vrouwen in Israel een prikpil zouden krijgen, en ook hoe daar misverstanden over zouden kunnen ontstaan. Maar de media negeren liever ieder gezond verstand en grijpen een artikel in Haaretz zonder blikken of blozen aan om het zoveelste bloedsprookje te verspreiden.

 

Wouter

______________
 

Did Israelis force contraception on Ethiopian women? (UPDATE x2)

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.nl/2013/01/did-israelis-force-contraception-on.html

 

This troubling story has been all over the place, all from this Ha'aretz article claiming that Israeli officials admit to giving contraceptive injections to Ethiopian women without their permission.

But what does the article actually say?

 

A government official has for the first time acknowledged the practice of injecting women of Ethiopian origin with the long-acting contraceptive Depo-Provera.

Health Ministry Director General Prof. Ron Gamzu has instructed the four health maintenance organizations to stop the practice as a matter of course.

The ministry and other state agencies had previously denied knowledge or responsibility for the practice, which was first reported five years ago.

Gamzu's letter instructs all gynecologists in the HMOs "not to renew prescriptions for Depo-Provera for women of Ethiopian origin if for any reason there is concern that they might not understand the ramifications of the treatment."

He also instructed physicians to avail themselves of translators if need be.

Gamzu's letter came in response to a letter from Sharona Eliahu-Chai of the Association of Civil Rights in Israel, representing several women's rights and Ethiopian immigrants' groups. The letter demanded the injections cease immediately and that an investigation be launched into the practice.

About six weeks ago, on an Educational Television program journalist Gal Gabbay revealed the results of interviews with 35 Ethiopian immigrants. The women's testimony could help explain the almost 50-percent decline over the past 10 years in the birth rate of Israel's Ethiopian community. According to the program, while the women were still in transit camps in Ethiopia they were sometimes intimidated or threatened into taking the injection. "They told us they are inoculations," said one of the women interviewed. "They told us people who frequently give birth suffer. We took it every three months. We said we didn't want to."

 

First of all, Israeli doctors admitted offering Depo-Provera years ago to those who want it. In June 2008, the health minister of the time, Yaacov Ben Yezri, "said the high number of Ethiopians in Israel using the drug reflected a 'cultural preference' for injections among Ethiopians." Whether this is true or not, it shows that Ha'aretz is sloppy already in the first paragraph - they meant to claim that Israel acknowledged injecting the drug without permission.

But does that memo really say that? 

The TV special that claimed that these women were coerced into taking the drug aired about six weeks ago. Isn't it possible that this memo was more to show caution that there might have been some women who misunderstood the use of the drug or the options they have for birth control? That's the way the quoted part reads to me. It certainly doesn't admit that Israeli doctors were conspiring to sterilize Ethiopian women, as Ha'aretz alleges - and as other media have willingly published.

Now let's look at the earlier article about the TV investigation:

 

Women who immigrated from Ethiopia eight years ago say they were told they would not be allowed into Israel unless they agreed to be injected with the long-acting birth control drug Depo Provera, according to an investigative report aired Saturday on the Israel Educational Television program "Vacuum."

The women say that while waiting in transit camps in Ethiopia prior to immigration they were placed in family planning workshops where they were coaxed into agreeing to the injection - a charge denied by both the Joint Distribution Committe, which ran the clinics, and the Health Ministry.

"We said we won't have the shot. They told us, if you don't you won't go to Israel And also you won't be allowed into the Joint (American Joint Distribution Committee) office, you won't get aid or medical care. We were afraid... We didn't have a choice. Without them and their aid we couldn't leave there. So we accepted the injection. It was only with their permission that we were allowed to leave," recounted Emawayish, who immigrated from Ethiopia eight years ago.

Emawayish was one of 35 women, whose stories were recorded by Sebba Reuven, that relate how they were coaxed and threatened into agreeing to receive the injectable birth control drug.

The birth rate among Israel's Ethiopian immigrant population has dropped nearly 20 percent in 10 years.

According to the report, the women were given the Depo Provera injections in the family planning workshops in transit camps, a practice that continued once they reached Israel. The women who were interviewed for the investigation reported that they were told at the transit camps that having many children would make their lives more difficult in Ethiopia and in Israel, and even that they would be barred from coming to Israel if they refused.

 

If true, this is indeed terrible. But the denials in that program were no less emphatic:

 

The Joint said in a response to "Vacuum" that its family planning workshops are among the services it provides to immigrants, who learn about spacing out their children's birth, "but we do not advise them to have small families. It is a matter of personal choice, but we tell them it is possible. The claims by the women according to which 'refusal to have the injection will bar them from medical care [and] economic aid and threaten their chances to immigrate to Israel are nonsense. The medical team does not intervene directly or indirectly in economic aid and the Joint is not involved in the aliyah procedures. With regard to the use of Depo Provera, studies indicate that is the most popular form of birth control among women in Ethiopia," the Joint said.

In its response to "Vacuum," the Health Ministry said it did not "recommend or try to encourage the use of Depo Provera, and that if these injections were used it was against our position. The Health Ministry provides individual family counseling in the framework of its well baby clinics and this advice is also provided by the physicians of the health maintenance organizations."

The Jewish Agency, which is responsible for Jewish immigration from abroad, said in response that it takes a harsh view of any effort to interfere in the family planning processes of Ethiopian immigrants, adding that "while the JA has never held family planning workshops for this group in Ethiopia or at immigrant absorption centers in Israel, the immigrant transit camp in Gondar, as the investigation noted, was previously operated by other agencies."

 

Three separate organizations on two continents are accused of performing the same reprehensible practice, a practice that would involve an unusual amount of collusion and conspiracy. But not one doctor from these agencies has come forward to verify the claims.

Yet another denial was published in a blog when the report first came out, from a doctor at The Joint:

 

JDC runs the medical program in Gondar for potential immigrants to Israel. As part of this, we offer voluntary contraception to our population. Our clinic offers both birth control pills and injectable contraception. If a woman prefers another method of contraception such as implantable or tubal ligation, we send them to facilities down the road in the city of Gondar for this.

Women come to the program because they desire family planning. We present the various options to them and they choose. So women both choose to use contraception and choose their method. And choose when to discontinue contraception. It has always been that way in our program.

Right now we're caring for about 4500 potential immigrants to Israel. We average about 85 family planning visits each month.

We do not inform the Israeli authorities who is on family planning, and I have no idea what happens once they arrive in Israel.

Regarding the rate of 30% reported some years ago, we offered family planning to the population at a time when it was less available to the general public, and our population chose to use it.

At present, the rate of modern contraceptive use in Amhara Region is 33% indicating a significant demand, as contraceptive services have become more available to the public. Even now, there is an unmet demand for contraceptive services in this region of over 20%. To give you an idea of the rise in this service, in 2005, 15.7% used modern contraception in Amhara region.

Injectable contraceptives are the most desired throughout the country. They are easy, culturally preferred, and offer the ability to be on birth control without a woman informing her husband, which is an issue here.

I appreciate the chance to set this record straight.

Best wishes,

Rick Hodes, MD, MACP
Medical Director, AJJDC-Ethiopia


Update 9:50 am CST – I followed up with Dr. Hodes to make sure there was no mistake about what he was saying:

 

"So to be clear, you're saying that you personally never told any woman that she would have to take Depo-Provera shots in order to immigrate to Israel? The women claim that JDC workers from Israel told them they had to do it. Is that claim to the best of your knowledge false?" 

 

Dr. Hodes replied:

 

To the best of my knowledge, this claim is 100% false.

Neither myself nor my staff have ever told any women in our program that they should take Depo-Provera for any reason. 100% of Depo-Provera shots are purely voluntary, and may be discontinued (or changed to another method) at any time.

In fact, we don't have JDC workers from Israel come and tell women these things.

 

So how can these contradictory claims be reconciled? The idea that the Joint, the Jewish Agency and the Health Ministry are all lying might work for anti-Israel conspiracy theorists, but it is hardly credible. 

My guess - and it is only a guess - is that Ethiopian women were generally enthusiastic about the idea of birth control. And as Dr. Hodes says, the idea of injectable contraception was appealing to them - because they don't have to tell their husbands.

This is the key to understanding the story. The Ethiopian husbands would generally be averse to their wives taking birth control, so they must do it in secret - and the Depo-Provera is by far the best method to keep their husbands from knowing. They simply tell them that they were receiving inoculations or some other excuse.

Now, when the men start getting suspicious as to why they aren't having kids, how many of the wives will admit that they are secretly taking contraception? It is much easier to come up with a story about how it all happened without their knowledge, or how they were forced to do it against their will.

I am not denying that there is racism in Israel, just as there is everywhere else. I can certainly believe that some Israeli doctors may be more likely to recommend the Depo-Provera injection for black women than their whiter patients. I can believe that the frustration of not being able to communicate can result in sub-par care, and in not explaining the contraceptive options that they have. It is very possible that the doctors did not properly inform the women of the (sometimes serious) side effects that Depo-Provera has. The TV program helped expose these fissures in the care being given to Ethiopian women. This would naturally result in the Gamzu memo that Ha'aretz reported so eagerly.

The idea that doctors - especially in doctors who willingly travel to Ethiopia, people who would be among the most dedicated medical professionals on the planet - would conspire to effectively sterilize black women is simply not plausible.

Ha'aretz, and the gullible hateful media that follows it slavishly, was actively trying to demonize Israeli health officials and organizations that are dedicated to helping people - in order to report a scoop. The facts that we are aware of today, however, do not add up to the claims being made.

Perhaps my theory isn't 100% correct. I'm the first to admit that we don't have all the facts. But what I am suggesting fits the facts we do know much better than the yellow journalism being practiced in this case.

UPDATE: Mordy in the comments points to a 2005 study that says exactly what I was guessing:

Because contraceptives may introduce social discord, leading at times to intimate partners' violence amongst African couples, women of low bargaining powers often resort to family planning methods that are suitable to covert use.

Women can take injections of Depo-Provera while visiting a health facility and remain protected against unwanted pregnancies for three months. This may be done without their husband's knowledge and without the bother of having to remember to take the pill or to undergo clinical procedures that are involved when opting for implants or intrauterine devices. Consequently, a general pattern that has been observed in the contraceptive method mix in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere in the developing world is the predominance of injectables.

If a reporter visits one or fifty of these women and asks if they took the injections voluntarily, what do you think they would say?

UPDATE 2: Reuters did a tiny bit of actual reporting and asked Gamzu whether his memo was an admittance that Israel is forcibly giving the drug to Ethiopian women:

Ministry Director-General Roni Gamzu said the decision did not imply he accepted the allegations by the Association of Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI).

Ha'aretz' misinterpretation of the memo, as I wrote above, was the linchpin for the entire story.

This is looking more and more like Ha'aretz' version of the "Racist Jews steal organs from Arabs and Haitians" story that the anti-semites love to push.

 

 

 

Palestijnse boeren op Israelische landbouwexpo

 

Netanyahu's beleid t.o.v. de Palestijnen was om geen haast te maken met een tweestatenoplossing maar eerst de Palestijnse economie op de Westbank te versterken, en toeval of niet, die groeide behoorlijk in de laatste jaren. Zelfs met de Gazastrook gaat het tussen de desastreuze geweldsescalaties door de laatste paar jaar wat beter.

 

Zie ook: #BDSFail: boeren uit Gaza bezoeken Israel en exporteren naar Europa

 

_________________

 

Palestijnse boeren op Israelische landbouwexpo

http://www.cidi.nl/Nieuwsberichten/Palestijnse-boeren-op-Israelische-landbouwexpo.html

WO 30-01-2013 

 

Zo'n dertig boeren uit de Gazastrook bezochten deze maand op uitnodiging van de organisatoren de grote Israelische landbouwexpositie in de Westelijke Negev. De Gazanen verbouwen aardbeien, tomaten en bloemen. De expositie toont nieuwe technieken, bijvoorbeeld om goede opbrengsten te krijgen met weinig water.

Gazaanse boeren exporteren al langer naar Europa; vorige maand werden er 200 ton aarbeien verscheept, 130 ton tomaten en ruim 100 miljoen bloemen. Gazaanse en Israelishe boeren maakten onlangs afspraken die de verpakking en export van deze producten moeten versnellen en beide partijen zijn tevreden over de samenwerking. 

 

Palestijnen van de Westelijke Jordaanoever hebben al jaren zelf een stand op Israelische landbouwexposities (zie het filmpje onderaan dit bericht). Deze boeren produceren vooral olijfolie, maar de meest bijzondere Palestijnse exposant is het enige Palestijnse biermerk, Taybe. Op de Westbank mogen veel islamitische inwoners om religieuze redenen geen alcohol drinken. Taibe is echter een christelijk plaatsje en de inwoners mogen dus bier produceren en drinken.   

 

De geschiedenis van dit bier is nauw verweven met de Palestijns-Israelische betrekkingen, memoreerde een Israelische blogger bij de expo van vorig jaar. Voor 2000 werd het verkocht aan settlers op de Westelijke Jordaanoever en aan Israelische soldaten en was het zelfs kosher, compleet met rabbinale goedkeuring. Maar na de intifada werd het steeds moeilijker voor het rabbinaat om zijn controleurs naar de brouwelijk te sturen en het merk raakte zijn certificaat kwijt. "Maar de ingrediënten zijn nog net zo kosher", vertelde brouwer Madees Khoury aan TIME.Ook de reclameslogans van het bier weerspiegelen deze ontwikkeling. In Ramallah hangen posters met: 'Drink Palestijns — Proef de Revolutie'. Maar aan Westers publiek houdt de brouwerij het op: 'Drink op Vrede' (klik de afbeeldingen voor een vergroting).

Het bezoek van de Gazaanse boeren, op uitnodiging van de Israelische organisatie, was echter nieuw en lijkt een teken van voorzichtige economische normalisering.
Lees hier over de onlangs opgezette Israelisch-Gazaanse exportsamenwerking.
 

In 2011 exposeerden voor het eerst 400 Palestijnse boeren van de Westbank hun waren op een Israelische landbouwbeurs.

 

(zie CIDI website voor de video)

 

Israël boycot mensenrechtenraad VN met reden

 

Israel past ervoor aan een poppenkast van de zogenaamde "Mensenrechtenraad" van de Verenigde Naties mee te doen; een review van de mensenrechtensituatie in alle lidstaten die in de vorige ronde het regime van Ghadaffi nog prees om haar vorderingen op dat gebied en vol lof was over de vooruitgang die Syrië op mensenrechtengebied boekte.

 

Zie ook: Israël en de VN Mensenrechtenraad

 

Wouter

_______________

Amnesty upset Israel not participating in biased UNHRC UPR exercise

 

From Amnesty:

 

If the Israeli government is not careful, it will ruin an important global human rights process for everybody.

The Universal Periodic Review, a process to examine states' human rights records, has until now been truly universal: all United Nation member states were reviewed by the end of 2011 and the second cycle of reviews has already started.

But now the government of Israel is not engaging with the process. Every indication is that the Israel will not be present this afternoon when it is scheduled to be examined under the Universal Periodic Review. As the only recalcitrant state among 193, Israel's deliberate absence would sabotage the principle of universality. Consequently the Universal Periodic Review stands to lose the compelling legitimacy it derives from being applied even-handedly to all states. Why should states that would prefer to escape scrutiny of their human rights record, or are severely resource constrained, submit to this process if Israel's non-compliance demonstrates that it is no longer universal?

 

UN Watch has the truth:

 

In reality, the UPR is — for the most part — a mutual praise society.

Though the New York Times today praised the UPR's "universal and collaborative characteristics," saying it provided "a platform to scrutinize and discuss the situation of human rights in even the most closed and repressive regimes," it apparently forgot that earlier it had reported on how Qaddafi's Libyan regime came out of its review with top marks:

 

Until Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's violent suppression of unrest in recent weeks, the United Nations Human Rights Council was kind in its judgment of Libya. In January, it produced a draft report on the country that reads like an international roll call of fulsome praise, when not delicately suggesting improvements. Evidently, within the 47-nation council, some pots are loath to call kettles black, at least until events force their hand.

 

Former Amnesty USA director Suzanne Nossel called the report "abhorrent."

It's not for nothing that despots walk into this court with confidence and ease. See our report on yesterday's lavish UPR party put on by the United Arab Emirates.

What is more, those accusing Israel of desecrating the temple are the same who systematically turn a blind eye to the council's persistent and pathological lynching of Israel: the special agenda item and special day against Israel at every session; the lopsided amount of resolutions against Israel, often amounting to more than the total adopted on the rest of the world combined; Israel's exclusion from any of the council's regional groups; and the completely biased mandate of the council's permanent investigator on Palestine, Richard Falk, who endorses Hamas and the 9/11 conspiracy theory.

For a council that does such things on an ongoing basis to then accuse Israel of undermining principle is the height of audacity and hypocrisy; the complainants come with unclean hands — very unclean hands.

 

See also UN Watch's links.

A glance comparing the previous UPR reports on Israel and Syria show that the UPR is truly a joke.

While at first glance the number of recommendations given were about the same, the phrasing for Israel was consistently combative while Syria was praised. For example, here are typical recommendations for Israel in 2008:

 

- 35. Acknowledge/recognize, accept and fully implement the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the wall (Egypt, Maldives, Jordan, Palestine, Pakistan) that Israel immediately cease work on the construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and begin dismantling it (Maldives); end construction of, and dismantle the already built, illegal separation wall (Cuba); dismantle the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and refrain from expansion of settlements (Brazil); dismantle the separation wall (South Africa).

- 36. Take urgent and immediate steps to end its occupation of all Palestinian and Arab territories occupied since 1967; implement all Human Rights Council, General Assembly and Security Council resolutions on the Occupied Palestinian Territories and other Arab territories; introduce measures to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and their right to return; accept its obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law; cease action that would alter the demographic situation of Palestine; and grant access to safe drinking water to Syrian citizens living in the occupied Syrian Golan (South Africa);

But Syria's report includes numerous requests for it to continue to implement its wonderful existing system of human rights:

 

A - 100.11. Continue to implement measures to enhance national capacities for the promotion and protection of human rights (Belarus);

A - 100.12. Continue to confront attempts of foreign intervention into its domestic affairs and to exercise fully its people's right to self-determination and the country's sovereignty (Cuba);

A - 100.13. Continue the process of taking measures at the national level as well as the national dialogue under the guidance of its legitimate authorities as a means of a political solution to the situation in the country (Cuba);

A - 100.49. Continue the efforts to strengthen food security for all its people, particularly in rural areas (Bolivia);

A - 100.50. Continue to strengthen the achievements of health indicators, particularly related to child and maternal health, through the improvement of public health services (Bolivia);

A - 100.51. Continue policies and programs to improve the quality of basic social services provided to citizens, such as health care and education (Democratic People's Republic of Korea);

A - 100.52. Continue to provide basic healthcare service for people living in rural areas and increase its focus on vulnerable groups such as women, children and minorities (Myanmar);

A - 100.53. Continue to strengthen free education for all its people, particularly in rural areas, through "mobile schools" (Bolivia);

A - 100.54. Continue improving the quality of public education with the aim of maintaining the excellent level of education by which the different stages of education have been characterized (Venezuela); 

A - 100.55. Continue with its policy and its good practice to provide assistance and protect the rights of the many Palestinian refugees in the country (Ecuador);

 

Only one recommendation for Israel used the word "continue" and even that one was written in a combative tone; Syria was happily told to keep going with how wonderfully it was doing on 20 topics. Essentially no praise was given to Israel in its report for its health care or court system or really any achievement in any sphere, while seemingly every dictatorship's report was filled with praise as to how well they are implementing their human rights programs (and the regimes often claimed that they were implementing recommendations that they were clearly ignoring.)

While some countries, notably Canada, tried to hold brutal regimes accountable in the reports, for the most part like-minded abusers of human rights praised each other and blunted any possible usefulness that the UPR was meant to have.

The best that can be said is that the UPR is somewhat less of a joke than everything else the UNHRC does, but it is still a joke.  The UPR is essentially a continuation of the UNHRC's one-sided obsession with Israel with a superficial sheen of "universality,"  and Amnesty cannot even be bothered to point that out.

 

Media bijna kritiekloos tegenover petitie 'Sloop de muur' (IPI)

 

 

Media bijna kritiekloos tegenover petitie 'Sloop de muur'

http://www.israel-palestina.info/actueel/2013/01/30/media-bijna-kritiekloos-tegenover-petitie-sloop-de-muur/

Door Tjalling.

Oud premier Dries van Agt was op afgelopen 22 januari weer even terug in de Tweede Kamer om de Kamerleden op te roepen tot een debat over de Israëlische veiligheidsbarrière langs de grens met de Westelijke Jordaanoever. Er moest zelfs een heuse bolderkar aan te pas komen met daarin ruim 64.000 handtekeningen van het burgerinitiatief 'Sloop de muur'. Van Agt trok die kar en daardoor ook de media, die door hun kritiekloze houding niet voor de bolderkar onderdeden.

De oud-premier bood aan de Tweede Kamer de petitie 'Sloop de Muur' aan. Van Agt wil dat de Tweede Kamer een debat houdt over de 'muur' die Israël heeft gebouwd op de grens (en deels daarbuiten) van de Westelijke Jordaanoever. Doel van de actie is de leden van de Tweede Kamer ertoe bewegen aan te dringen op zware sancties tegen Israël, omdat de Joodse staat een muur (in werkelijkheid grotendeels een hek) heeft gebouwd op 'Palestijns gebied'. Volgens de initiatiefnemers is de bouw van de 'muur' in strijd met het internationaal recht. Men baseert zich daarbij op het (niet bindende) advies van het Internationaal Gerechtshof hierover uit 2004. Echter dit advies is behalve niet bindend ook inhoudelijk aanvechtbaar. Het Internationaal Gerechtshof kwalificeert deze gebieden ten onrechte en zonder reserve als 'bezette gebieden', met alle juridische consequenties van dien.

Omstreden gebied

Het gaat namelijk bij de Westelijke Jordaanoever (en ook Gaza) niet om bezet gebied in die zin dat een staat grondgebied van een andere staat bezet houdt. Egypte deed met de Camp David akkoorden van 1978 en het vredesverdrag van 1979 met Israël, definitief afstand van de Gazastrook, en in 1988 nam Jordanië officieel afstand van de Westelijke Jordaanoever. Palestina is op dit moment -nog- geen officiële staat, dus Israël houdt geen grondgebied van een andere soevereine staat bezet. Het houdt gebied bezet dat het zelf claimt op grond van de millennia oude geschiedenis van het Joodse volk, maar ook van recentere geschiedenis (de oude Joodse gemeenschappen die hier in de 20^ste eeuw werden verjaagd, en toezeggingen van de Volkenbond en de Britten), terwijl de Palestijnen dit gebied eveneens claimen op basis van toezeggingen en van het feit dat zij er (al eeuwenlang) de overgrote meerderheid vormen. Daarnaast houdt Israel aan het gebied vast vanwege de reële bedreiging die ervan uit gaat voor haar veiligheid, en waarmee ze de bouw van de afscheidingsbarrière rechtvaardigt. Het door elkaar lopen van die twee motieven maakt de kwestie ingewikkeld.

Een ander punt is dat er nooit een grens is vastgesteld tussen Israel en de 'bezette' gebieden: bij de wapenstilstandsakkoorden van 1949 werd uitdrukkelijk door alle partijen gesteld dat de 'Groene Lijn' niet als erkende grens werd gezien. Tot 1988 eisten de Palestijnen heel Israël op als grondgebied voor hun staat, en middels het 'recht op terugkeer' doen ze dat feitelijk tot op vandaag.

Internationaal recht

Dries van Agt zet zich al jarenlang in voor het lot van de Palestijnen, die naar zijn mening worden onderdrukt door het oppermachtige Israël, en hij is met zijn kruistocht al meerdere keren in de openbaarheid getreden. Deze keer appelleerde hij aan de Nederlandse Grondwet: "Het internationaal recht wordt geschonden omdat de Israëlische muur voor 70 procent op Palestijns gebied is gebouwd. De Nederlandse grondwet bepaalt dat het kabinet het internationale recht moet bevorderen. En u hebt gezworen op die Nederlandse Grondwet!" Onze vroegere premier beschuldigt ten onrechte Israël maar weer eens van het schenden van de internationale rechtsorde. We horen hem echter nooit iets zeggen over de Arabische buurlanden waarin de internationale rechtsorde en mensenrechten wel worden geschonden, of zelfs niet over hoe zij met hun Palestijnse inwoners omgaan. Dat moet toch zeker ook niet door het Nederlandse kabinet worden bevorderd? Bovendien hoeft Nederland natuurlijk ook niet mee te werken aan de uitvoering van een niet-bindend advies dat een fundamenteel recht van een Nederlandse bondgenoot, zoals verwoord in artikel 51 van het VN handvest, feitelijk naast zich neerlegt. Volgens het ICJ was dit artikel niet van toepassing omdat de dreiging niet van een andere staat afkomstig was, en had Israel andere middelen kunnen inzetten om haar burgers te beschermen. Van Agt en zijn medestanders zijn echter de warmste pleitbezorgers voor het erkennen van die Palestijnse staat, en veroordelen even fanatiek de andere middelen die Israel ter verdediging heeft ingezet, zoals de checkpoints en roadblocks en alle militaire acties die Israel tegen de terreur onderneemt.

Overigens benadrukte Van Agt dat 70% van de muur over Palestijns grondgebied loopt. Volgens Wikipedia is dit zelfs 80% van de lengte van het hek, vooral omdat het erg om de Joodse en Palestijnse nederzettingen op de Westbank en in Jeruzalem heen kronkelt. Volgens Betselem omvat het gebied tussen de Groene Lijn en de afscheidingsbarrière (nadat de route onder druk van het Israëlische hooggerechtshof meermaals is aangepast ten gunste van de Palestijnen) nog 8,5% van de Westbank inclusief Oost-Jeruzalem; andere bronnen spreken van 7%.

Selectief hart

Het is bekend dat de verontwaardiging van Van Agt over Israël erg selectief is, en wat hij zoal beweert lang niet altijd overeenkomt met de feiten. Zo laat hij stelselmatig het Palestijnse geweld buiten beschouwing, en als hij erop wordt gewezen, bagatelliseert hij het of acht hij het begrijpelijk en deels legitiem vanwege hun onmacht en frustratie. Ook de media besteedden weinig aandacht aan de gegronde reden waarom Israël een veiligheidsbarrière bouwde, namelijk om zelfmoord aanslagen in Israël tegen te gaan. De barrière heeft enorm geholpen, want het is duidelijk dat deze maatregel het aantal Palestijnse terreuraanslagen sterk heeft teruggebracht. Maar zoals al in de inleiding is gezegd, de meeste media stonden vrijwel kritiekloos tegenover het burgerinitiatief. Gelukkig bleek niet elk medium stuurloos. In het Reformatorisch Dagblad is op dezelfde datum een artikel gepubliceerd waarin wel werd aangetoond dat de juridische basis van het burgerinitiatief uiterst zwak is.

Last but not least een stevige kanttekening bij dit alles. Van Agt wil met dit burgerinitiatief 'mensen met een goed hart en een redelijk verstand' bereiken. Een dergelijke opmerking is typerend voor de eenzijdige houding van Van Agt ten opzichte van Israël. Alsof mensen die ook open staan voor de kant van Israël een 'verkeerd' hart en een ondermaats verstand zouden hebben. Gelet op het aantal handtekeningen zal de Kamer over het onderwerp een debat moeten voeren. Het is te hopen dat de meerderheid van de Tweede Kamer de eenzijdigheid van dit burgerinitiatief wel herkent, en een stevige oppositie daartegen gaat voeren met als uitkomst dat er, terecht, geen maatregelen tegen Israël genomen gaan worden. Zonde van de tijd overigens, die kan men beter besteden aan manieren om de Palestijnse vluchtelingen in Syrië te helpen, die door de buurlanden niet meer worden binnen gelaten.

---

Bronnen:

• http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4492/Nederland/article/detail/3381654/2013/01/23/Ex-premier-Van-Agt-Hoogste-tijd-voor-sancties-tegen-Israel.dhtml
• http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2686/Binnenland/article/detail/3381184/2013/01/22/Van-Agt-met-bolderkar-vol-handtekeningen-naar-Kamer.dhtml
• http://www.refdag.nl/opinie/juridische_basis_burgerinitiatief_sloop_de_muur_uiterst_zwak_1_708958
• http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/21238778/%20Van%20Agt%20met%20kar%20naar%20Kamer.html
• http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bezetting_(militair)
• http://www.israel-palestina.info/muur_hek-html/
• http://www.btselem.org/separation_barrier/statistics
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier
• http://www.israel-palestina.info/driesvanagt_israel_palestijnen-html/

 

Ondanks "blokkade" voert Hamas opendeur-beleid in Gazastrook ~ behalve voor Israelische goederen en patiënten

 

Er lijkt nog amper sprake te zijn van een blokkade sinds de versoepeling door Israel in 2010; ook export vindt weer geregeld plaats via Israel, en sinds de machtswisseling in Egypte lijkt de grens bij Rafah ver open te zijn.

Alleen de zeetoegang wordt door Israel nog streng gecontroleerd.

 

Wouter

______________

 

Gaza 'Siege'? Arab Leaders Continue to Freely Visit

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/164399   

Gaza's Hamas rulers constantly claim that the region is under an "Israeli siege", but continue to host leaders of Arab countries. 

By Elad Benari

First Publish: 1/21/2013, 4:12 AM

Gaza's Hamas terrorist rulers constantly claim that the region is under an "Israeli siege", but are continuing to host leaders of Arab countries.

The latest to schedule a visit is Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki, who will make his first visit to Gaza on February 9, according to officials from the Hamas government who spoke to AFP on Sunday.

"Tunisia President Marzouki will carryout a very important visit to the Gaza Strip on February 9," Hamas official Ghazi Hammad told the news agency, without giving details of the president's itinerary, or who would be accompanying him.

"This important visit will boost Arab solidarity with the Palestinian cause," Hammad added, saying that "this solidarity must be used to achieve Palestinian national reconciliation."

Marzouki's visit will be the latest in a string of high-profile trips to Gaza by Arab and Muslim leaders. In October, the emir of oil-rich Qatar visited Hamas-controlled Gaza, bringing with him money for its Hamas government.

His visit was the first by a foreign leader to Gaza since Hamas overthrew Fatah in a bloody militia war in 2007.

During last November's Operation Pillar of Defense in Gaza, a delegation of Arab foreign ministers, along with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, visited Gaza.

Also during Pillar of Defense, Egypt's Prime Minister Hisham Qandil visited the coastal enclave.

As well, according to a Sunday report in the PA's Wafa news agency, Malaysia's Prime Minister, Najib Razak, is scheduled to spend few hours in Gaza on Tuesday.

Sources in Gaza told the news agency that Razak, who will be accompanied by his wife and an official delegation including his foreign minister, will visit terror sites that were destroyed by Israeli air attacks during Pillar of Defense and inaugurate projects.

Meanwhile on Sunday, Hamas's de-facto Prime Minister in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, called on the PA leadership living abroad to visit Gaza in order to demonstrate "the adherence to the fundamental Palestinian rights and principles."

Haniyeh made ​​the comments during a meeting with Osama Hamdan, a member of Hamas's political bureau, who arrived in Gaza on Sunday. He said that the ongoing visits to Gaza by Arab leaders demonstrate the victory over Israel and the national unity between Arabs living abroad and in "Palestine."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

 

Hamas Tries to Limit Israeli Imports into Gaza

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/164324   

Hamas bans certain types of Israeli goods into Gaza. Israel nevertheless continues supplying goods.

By Elad Benari

First Publish: 1/18/2013, 12:16 AM

Hamas is once again trying to punish the residents of Gaza by attempting to reduce the scope of Israeli goods entering the region.

Hamas' Ministry of Economics announced this week its decision to ban the import of certain types of goods into Gaza through the Israeli crossings. These include office furniture, various types of foods, hygiene products, gas pipes, plastic,plastic bags and clothing.

The local population in Gaza expressed its dissatisfaction with the decision, especially since the Israeli products that enter Gaza are considered to be of much higher quality than the goods that are smuggled into Gaza from Egypt, through the tunnels in the Rafiah area.

The Coordinator of Government Activities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza (COGAT) noted that this is part of an ongoing Hamas policy, which seeks to reduce imports from Israel and other external markets without analyzing the serious impact such decisions would have on the public and the population in Gaza.

Nevertheless, COGAT noted, on Wednesday 218 truckloads containing a variety of goods and 175 tons of gas were delivered into Gaza.

The trucks were delivered through the Kerem Shalom Crossing under the coordination of the Coordination and Liaison Administration in Gaza.

In addition, noted COGAT, 301 tons of strawberries, and 52,000 flowers units were exported from Gaza this week. The export was coordinated by the Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration through the Kerem Shalom crossing.

Israel continuously allows humanitarian aid into Gaza, despite Hamas's claims that there is a "siege" on the region. Israeli has approved internationally funded and monitored projects in Gaza. Since 2011, 235 projects have been approved. In September 2012 alone, 16 new projects were approved.

Israel has also supported the private sector in Gaza, and has approved the transfer of raw materials for private sector construction, including roof tiles, building stones, dry wall, mosaics, adhesives, plaster, etc.

In addition to all of the above, the communication channels between Israel and the PA's Ministry of Health have been maintained in recent years, despite Hamas' violent takeover of Gaza in 2007. As part of this communication Israeli doctors have more than once helped save the lives of PA Arabs from Gaza who came to receive treatment in Israeli hospitals.

Angry at the PA-Israel cooperation, Hamas has prevented the transfer of Gaza patients to hospitals in Israel.