Erkenning als Joodse staat

Een interessant redaktioneel commentaar van de Jerusalem Post. Eén van de vragen is waarom Olmert de eis tot expliciete erkenning van Israël als Joodse staat juist nu stelt, en hoe dit na de Palestijnse weigering opgelost moet worden.

It may be that the prime minister believes the issue he has chosen to put front and center can be finessed. In its 1988 declaration of Palestinian independence, the PLO made note of "UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947), which partitioned Palestine into two states, one Arab, one Jewish..." - a reference that some might interpret as a measure of acknowledgement for Israel's Jewish character. But now that prominent Palestinian figures have so bitterly rejected explicit recognition, that kind of finesse would be harder to swallow on the Israeli side, and certainly would not go down well with the more hawkish elements of the coalition.

Het kan ook betekenen dat de Palestijnen 'terug' willen naar de grenzen van de delingsresolutie uit 1947. Aangezien deze interpretatie of 'finesse' is tegengesproken in talloze andere toespraken en dus weinig waard bleek, lijkt eenzelfde subtiele bewoording niet erg waarschijnlijk. De vraag zou niet alleen moeten zijn hoe dit praktisch op te lossen met de Palestijnen, maar vooral wat Israël met een dergelijke expliciete erkenning wil bereiken. David Horowitz is daar heel duidelijk over:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is pressing the Palestinian leadership to explicitly commit itself to coexistence alongside the Jewish state. He wants Mahmoud Abbas - the Palestinian leader so widely hailed as a departure from Arafat, who nonetheless has repeatedly embraced his predecessor's legacy this week at events marking three years since Arafat's death - to publicly come to terms with an Israel that has an overwhelmingly Jewish population, and whose existence marks the renewal of historic Jewish national sovereign rights.

Het is prima om aan Palestijnse gevoeligheden tegenmoet te komen zoals:
- wij hebben hier ook historische rechten
- het moet duidelijk zijn dat niet-Joodse burgers in Israël gelijke rechten hebben
- we erkennen geen recht op een Joodse staat in heel het land

Maar niet aan 'gevoeligheden' zoals:
- maar dan moeten we het 'recht op terugkeer' van de vluchtelingen opgeven
- dan moeten we erkennen dat de Joden een volk zijn en hier ook wortels hebben
- daarmee moeten we teveel van onze 'rechten' opgeven

Een lastige is de volgende:
- dan zijn wij (het onderhandelingsteam en Abbas en de Palestijnse regering) ons leven niet meer zeker.

Israël kan hen tijdelijk onderdak aanbieden, en kan Abbas en zijn familie, die uit Safed stammen, 'recht op terugkeer' aanbieden. LOL. Als er serieuze aanwijzingen zijn dat ze inderdaad veel gevaar zouden lopen (onderhandelingen houden altijd een risico in, zoals Rabin en Sadat ons bewijzen), zou dat een reden tot wolliger taalgebruik kunnen zijn, onder de voorwaarde dat men, als teken van goodwill, de ophitsing tegen Joden en Israël in de media, schoolboeken en moskeeën aanpakt.

 

 

Ratna

---------

Editor's Notes:

The 'Jewish Israel' genie

David Horovitz , THE JERUSALEM POST Nov. 15, 2007


Almost 20 years after the PLO asserted that it was ready to end the "armed struggle" and reconcile to the fact of Israel's existence, and days before the Annapolis talks are set to herald a resumption of substantive diplomatic negotiations, Israel finally this week began to put the Palestinians on the spot.

Yasser Arafat's purported readiness to come to terms with Israel in the late 1980s helped create the sense of optimism here that saw Yitzhak Rabin elected prime minister in 1992, and the subsequent attempt at peacemaking via the Oslo Accords. But strikingly, through the highs and lows of that process, the Palestinians were never pressed as to the precise character of the Israel they had in mind when they made their pledges of recognition and intended reconciliation. "Final status" issues, critically including the fate of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees and their millions of descendants, were set aside in the hope that gradually improving day-to-day relations would ultimately create an atmosphere in which those knottiest problems could be solved.

That moment never came, and the Palestinians and their leadership were not required to make explicit a commitment not merely to peacemaking with Israel, but to peacemaking with Israel the Jewish state, revived sovereign homeland of the Jewish nation. In his immensely detailed book on the Oslo years, The Process: 1,100 days that Changed the Middle East, Uri Savir, the then-Foreign Ministry director-general and central Oslo architect, devotes next to no attention to the subject, and indeed barely mentions the refugee issue and the unrelenting Palestinian demand for a "right of return" that would spell the end of Jewish Israel.

When "final status" issues were eventually placed fair and square on the table, at Camp David in the summer of 2000 and in the subsequent final months of the Clinton Administration, Arafat balked at the necessity to compromise Palestinian maximalist demands for the sake of a viable two-state solution. The conflicting narratives are plentiful, but the fact is that Arafat has gone down in history as the man who refused to endorse a renunciation of the "right of return," and in so doing chose not to clear the path to the establishment of Palestine.

More than a year and a half after Camp David, as the bloody consequences of its failure were unfolding in the second intifada terror war, Arafat was still publicly obfuscating and dissembling. In a New York Times op-ed piece that bore his byline in February 2002, he wrote encouragingly about seeking "creative solutions to the plight of the refugees while respecting Israel's demographic concerns."

But the selfsame article specified the "right of return" as guaranteed under international law, and added: "Just as we Palestinians must be realistic with respect to Israel's demographic desires, Israelis too must be realistic in understanding that there can be no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if the legitimate rights of these innocent civilians continue to be ignored. Left unresolved, the refugee issue has the potential to undermine any permanent peace agreement between Palestinians and Israelis. How is a Palestinian refugee to understand that his or her right of return will not be honored but those of Kosovar Albanians, Afghans and East Timorese have been?"

Throughout this period, moreover, Arafat continued to deride the Jews' historical connection to their holiest sites, dismissing the notion that a Jewish Temple ever stood in Jerusalem, and the Palestinian media apparatus under his control relentlessly delegitimized Jewish rights to sovereignty in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, Palestinian refugees and their descendants were deliberately allowed to fester in refugee camps, and the unique criteria used by the United Nations for determining Palestinian refugee status continued to inflate refugee numbers and thus exacerbate an already immensely problematic issue.

Only now, in the chaotic run-up to Annapolis - an event that seems to be metamorphosing before our eyes from a historic summit, at which substantive progress was to have been announced, to a brief meeting prefacing the planned formal restart of negotiations - is Israel attempting to resolve this fundamental lacuna.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is pressing the Palestinian leadership to explicitly commit itself to coexistence alongside the Jewish state. He wants Mahmoud Abbas - the Palestinian leader so widely hailed as a departure from Arafat, who nonetheless has repeatedly embraced his predecessor's legacy this week at events marking three years since Arafat's death - to publicly come to terms with an Israel that has an overwhelmingly Jewish population, and whose existence marks the renewal of historic Jewish national sovereign rights.

"We won't hold negotiations on our existence as a Jewish state," Olmert told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday, echoing remarks he had made in a speech to the Saban Forum a few days earlier. "This is a launching point for all negotiations. We won't have an argument with anyone in the world over the fact that Israel is a state of the Jewish people. Whoever does not accept this cannot hold any negotiations with me. This has been made clear to the Palestinians and the Americans."

Olmert seemed to muddy things a little, by going on to say something that would postpone this requirement to the very end of the diplomatic process: Palestinians' recognition of "Israel as 'a Jewish state,'" he was quoted as saying, "will be a condition for our recognition of a Palestinian state."

But on Wednesday, the Prime Minister's Office nailed the matter unequivocally. According to a statement it issued after his meeting with European Union envoy Javier Solana, Olmert "referred to Israel's insistence that the foundation for the post-Annapolis negotiations with the Palestinians be recognition of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people." Olmert, the statement went on, "made it clear that from Israel's point of view, this issue is not subject to either negotiations or discussion." Recognize Israel as the Jewish state now, in other words, or the renewed diplomatic progress will be over before it has begun.

If this demand is indeed steadfastly and unequivocally pressed, the portents for its acceptance are not good. The Palestinian Authority's Prime Minister Salaam Fayad, the longtime chief Palestinian peace negotiator Saeb Erekat and the veteran PLO executive committee member Yasser Abed Rabbo all rushed this week to reject it as an impossibility. "It is only a Zionist party that deals with Israel as a Jewish state, and we did not request to be a member of the international Zionism movement," said Abed Rabbo dryly.

Echoed Erekat in one interview, "the Palestinians will never acknowledge Israel's Jewish identity." And in another, he elaborated: "When they say that they want us to recognize a Jewish state, that is impossible. There is no country in the world where religious and national identities are intertwined."

Leaving aside the patent absurdity of that latter claim given the 55-strong state membership of the Islamic Conference, the British monarch's place at the head of the Church of England, and similar "intertwinings" everywhere from Bhutan to Argentina (as noted by Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe this week), those brief comments by Erekat are particularly dismal. They suggest that even he, a key Palestinian negotiator who has spent untold hours in discussions with Israeli leaders, resists internalizing and acknowledging the essence of Israel - Israel, that is, the revived homeland of the ancient Jewish nation; the only homeland where the Jewish nation has ever been sovereign or sought sovereignty, the land to which the Jewish nation, sustained by its faith over centuries of exile, prayed and the only land to which it sought its return.

In a telephone interview with me on Thursday afternoon, Erekat again expressed outrage at the demand, gave a little ground, but certainly did not meet Olmert's specific condition. "Israel has rights in the Middle East and the majority of Israelis are Jews," he said. "And when we recognized Israel, we recognized the composition of the state."

Dan Meridor, the former justice minister who was at Camp David seven years ago, noted to The Jerusalem Post this week that even Palestinian acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state would leave dangerous wiggle room on the refugee issue, since "they can argue that a state with a 60 percent Jewish majority, and not an 80% majority [as at present], is still Jewish." What is important, therefore, said Meridor, "is an agreement specifying the end of the conflict with no right of return."

In terms of the negotiating process and the practical specifics of an agreement, Meridor is correct. But it is primarily a psychological hurdle that the Palestinians have to clear. Alongside their demand for their own sovereign entity, they have to come to terms with the rights of the Jewish nation in this land, and the consequent necessity to relinquish the demand for a "right of return." And Olmert, for whatever reason, has chosen to demand that they do so now.

The failure of the Palestinian leadership to make this shift itself, and thus to confront its people with the need to do so, is evident from opinion poll after opinion poll among the Palestinians showing overwhelming opposition to compromise on the refugee issue. In the latest survey conducted by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Center, among 1,200 Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, in early November, for instance, 66.8% chose the "return of all the refugees to their original homes" as their favored solution to the refugee issue.

But surveys aside, the failure is also starkly evident on the ground, in the reality of the Gaza Strip: Israel has had no presence in Gaza for more than two years. International willingness to help fund the relocation of Gaza's refugees to permanent homes in the Strip cannot be doubted. Yet the refugee wound has been left to fester even after the Israelis have gone, because the notion of overwhelming Jewish Israel by weight of refugee-influx numbers is still unchallenged.

As Annapolis looms closer, with even its scaled down joint statement of principles still anything but finalized, Olmert is said to be confident that the "Jewish Israel" genie he chose to let loose will yet be satisfactorily addressed there. That confidence is not shared by the Israeli negotiating team that is attempting to formulate a mutually acceptable text with the Palestinians. But Erekat, in our interview, also reckoned it would not derail resumption of the negotiating process. Centrally involved in the talks on the joint statement, he said it would be "guided by the road map" rather than by Olmert's demand.

It may be that the prime minister believes the issue he has chosen to put front and center can be finessed. In its 1988 declaration of Palestinian independence, the PLO made note of "UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947), which partitioned Palestine into two states, one Arab, one Jewish..." - a reference that some might interpret as a measure of acknowledgement for Israel's Jewish character. But now that prominent Palestinian figures have so bitterly rejected explicit recognition, that kind of finesse would be harder to swallow on the Israeli side, and certainly would not go down well with the more hawkish elements of the coalition.

Israel committed a strategic error in not requiring the Palestinians to recognize Israel as "the Jewish state" at the very start of the attempts at peacemaking almost 20 years ago. Postponement of that moment of fundamental reckoning has only spelled bloodshed and the development of the false sense on the Palestinian side that it can yet be subverted.

Among the key questions now are how tenaciously Olmert will hold to his demand, whether some kind of finesse will be found, and how this will impact on Olmert's governing coalition. But perhaps the most interesting question is why the prime minister chose to raise this most legitimate of demands at this particularly delicate juncture.

 

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195127516822&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

 

Ereikat: PA zal geen akkoord tekenen tenzij alle Palestijnse gevangenen vrijkomen

Meer slecht nieuws van het onderhandelings/vredesfront. Nadat hoofd-onderhandelaar Erekat had geweigerd Israël als Joodse staat te erkennen, eist hij nu dat Israël alle gevangenen vrijlaat als voorwaarde voor een overeenkomst of gemeenschappelijke verklaring op de Annapolis vredesconferentie.

 

De kans dat Israël alle gevangenen vrijlaat, waaronder terroristen die tientallen Israëli's op hun geweten hebben, is nihil, dus eigenlijk zegt Erekat dat de Palestijnen geen verklaring gaan tekenen.

Daarmee zou de conferentie als mislukt kunnen worden beschouwd, en sommige Palestijnse ingewijden hebben verklaard dat Abbas dan wellicht af zal treden. Zou Erekat soms daarop uit zijn? Het lijkt niet erg waarschijnlijk, en zijn dreigende taal zal wel vooral bedoeld zijn om de druk op Israël en de VS op te voeren, en ook om het thuisfront gerust te stellen dat 'Palestijnse rechten' niet in de uitverkoop worden gegooid.

 

Met een dergelijke houding, waarbij ook het constante hameren op het zogenaamde 'recht op terugkeer' geteld moet worden, evenals het claimen van geheel Oost-Jeruzalem inclusief de Klaagmuur en Joodse begraafplaats, dreigen de Palestijnen echter de kans op vrede en een succesvolle top te verspelen.

 

 

Ratna

---------

Ereikat: PNA Won't Sign any Accord with Israel not guarantee Releasing All Prisoners
www.wafa.ps/english/body.asp?id=10619

TULKAREM, November 18, 2007 (WAFA - PLO news agency) - Head of PLO Negotiation Department, Saeb Ereikat said that there is no agreement or accord signed with the Israeli side in Annapolis before insuring the release of all Palestinian prisoners.

This came during meeting with number of prisoners' wives sand mothers in the West Bank city of Tulkarem.

Ereikat stressed that any deal or accord with the Israeli side will be rejected unless it includes the reopening of all PNA offices in Jerusalem, removing settlements and withdrawal from the West Bank.

"Israel has always its own criteria concerning the release of prisoners and detainees, the Palestinian side calls always for genuine releasing includes the release of old prisoners, children, women and patients. But Israel always rejects such release and we will never accept as such in the future," Ereikat said.


*** Balanced Middle East News ***
MidEastweb http://www.mideastweb.org
Subscribe - mail to mewnews-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

MewBkd - Background & analysis -
mail to Mewbkd-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

News Letter -  our commentary -
mail to mideastweb-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Iran leidt IAEA om de tuin over kernwapenprogramma

Volgens leden van de Israëlische veiligheidsdienst is niet Iran zelf het grote probleem, maar El Baradei, de leider van het Internationale Atoomenergie Agentschap. Uiteraard was de dreiging van een binnenkort nucleair Iran er niet geweest als Iran zelf geen uranium was gaan verrijken, maar er is wat voor te zeggen dat het feit dat het een kernmacht wil worden op zichzelf begrijpelijk is, maar dat de softe manier waarop de IAEA dat laat gebeuren dat niet is.

 

Een hardere opstelling van de IAEA wat betreft de zaken waarover Iran geen openheid wil geven en de manier waarop het de inspecteurs misleidt en niet alle gewenste informatie geeft, zou - aldus Ronen Bergman - Rusland en China onder druk zetten met hardere sancties tegen Iran in te stemmen.

 

Ratna

---------
 
Iranian trickery worked
Despite countless Iranian nuke violations, IAEA chief's report largely conciliatory

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3472239,00.html
Ronen Bergman Published: 11.16.07, 18:00 / Israel Opinion

Should intelligence officials in Israel be asked to choose the bad guy in this story, don't be sure they'll pick Khamenei, Iran's spiritual leader, or Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president who is not directly involved in Teheran's nuclear project.

They would not even choose Ali Larijani, the National Security Council secretary general and head of the Iranian nuclear project, who recently resigned (and who was characterized in Israel as a "a radical predator with a pleasant European appearance").

The officials will likely choose Egyptian diplomat, Dr. Muhammad ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as the bad guy, or at least as the person who bears most of the burden in the international community's conduct that led Iran so close to a nuclear bomb.

Even though Iran has been repeatedly caught lying; even though it admitted to acts that constitute blatant violations of the nuclear weapons non-proliferation treaty; even though there is a series of issues where IAEA experts ruled it has not provided satisfactory answers; even though it threatens time and again to put an end to inspections; even though it prevents inspectors from accessing some sites, experts, and know-how; despite all of this, ElBaradei insists, time and again, on wording his conclusions in a very lukewarm manner, and particularly his recommendations to the United Nations Security Council.

Odd Iranian explanations

Even if ElBaradei was more determined, the United States would still find it difficult to formulate an international coalition for adopting serious sanctions against Iran, but it's clear that sharp and incisive declarations by ElBaradei, as required by the facts, would provide the US with serious ammunition and push Russia and China into a corner.

In fact, ElBaradei is providing them with an excuse to continue sitting on the fence, while they keep on maintaining immense business ties with Iran behind the world's back. Time and again, we see an abyss between some of the factual findings, which are drafted by IAEA inspectors, to some of the conclusions and recommendations drafted by ElBaradei himself.

Just like in other matters and blatant violations that have been exposed since the Natanz facility was uncovered in 2003, every time the Iranians admitted to something it was only done when they had no other choice. In the last moment, and after the German intelligence establishment uncovered a laptop belonging to an Iranian nuclear scientist that included sketches of a nuclear warhead, Iran handed over these sketches themselves.

Iran presented this information in order to create a façade of cooperation and provide fuel to Russia and China, which are uninterested in boosting the sanctions, on the argument that the Iranians are in fact cooperating. This trick worked, and there we saw ElBaradei's report, which was rather conciliatory in some of its conclusions.

In addition to the laptop affair, there is still a series of additional unresolved issues involving the IAEA and Iran. This includes countless odd explanations provided by Iran to documents presented by the IAEA, and even odder explanations about documents that are known to have existed, but which the Iranians claim disappeared or were destroyed.

Relatie tussen Vaticaan en Israël gespannen

De relaties tussen het Vaticaan en de staat Israël verlopen stroef om allerlei redenen; 1.000+ jaar katholiek antisemitisme is daar één van.

Het Tweede Vaticaanse Concilie schafte begin jaren '60 pas eindelijk de leerstelling af dat de joden schuldig waren aan de kruisiging van Jezus. (Voordien hadden ze hun eigen Heilige Boek blijkbaar niet goed gelezen of begrepen?)

 

Earlier this year, tensions developed between the Vatican and Israel when the Holy See's ambassador to Israel initially decided to boycott a Holocaust memorial service because of allegations that during World War II Pope Pius XII was silent about the mass killings of Jews.

 

Toen de Nederlandse bisschoppen in 1942 een protestbrief tegen de Jodenvervolging lieten voorlezen in de kerken, werden prompt alle katholieke Joden opgepakt en gedeporteerd. Enige terughoudendheid kan de kerk daarom niet kwalijk worden genomen, maar het optreden van Paus Pius XII tijdens de oorlog blijft omstreden. Weliswaar had de Paus antisemitisme al in 1928 veroordeeld, en beval hij tijdens de oorlog katholieke instellingen om Joodse onderduikers op te nemen, maar hij zweeg in zijn toespraken over de vernietigingskampen en hield het bij algemene treurnis om de vele onschuldigen die in de oorlog slechts om ras of nationaliteit moesten sterven. De kerk mag zelf oordelen dat Pius XII zijn uiterste heeft gedaan om de Joden te helpen, maar een aangebrande reaktie als Joden daar zelf anders over denken is behoorlijk ongepast.

 

Wouter
_______________

'Vatican-Israeli ties worsening'

Associated Press , THE JERUSALEM POST Nov. 17, 2007

A senior Vatican diplomat who served as papal envoy to Israel has described Vatican-Israeli relations as worsening, blaming Israel for failing to keep promises related to church land, taxes and travel restrictions on Arab clergy.

Archbishop Pietro Sambi lashed out at Israel in an interview posted Friday on Terrasanta.net, an online publication about the Holy Land.

"If I must be frank, the relations between the Catholic Church and the state of Israel were better when there were no diplomatic ties," said Sambi, interviewed earlier in the week in Washington, where he now serves as Pope Benedict XVI's envoy to the United States.

"The Holy See decided to establish diplomatic relations (in 1993) with Israel as an act of faith, leaving to latter the serious promises to regulate concrete aspects of the life of the Catholic community and the Church" in Israel, Sambi said.

Among the issues hanging are the status of expropriated church property, services that Catholic groups perform for Israel's Jewish and Arab population, and tax exemptions for the Church.

The Vatican diplomat also cited a current sore point - the granting of permits for Arab Christian clergy traveling to and around the West Bank.
Israel has rescinded some travel privileges for those clergy because of security concerns.

Israel and the Palestinian territories are home to a small Christian minority.

Sambi complained that the Knesset has failed to give necessary approval to various accords that had been signed by both sides, and noted that an impasse over taxes has been discussed on and off for nearly 10 years without resolution.

He blamed the situation on Israel's "absence of political will."
"Everyone can see what kind of trust you can give to Israel's promises," Sambi said.

Asked about Sambi's criticisms, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said: "Israel is interested in good relations with the Vatican and Israeli and Vatican officials are working to overcome gaps that exist."

Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said the interview with Sambi "reflects his thinking and his personal experience" during the diplomat's former posting in Israel.

Lombardi said the Holy See reiterated the hope, expressed in September when Benedict met with Israeli President Shimon Peres, for a "rapid conclusion of the important negotiations" and a common solution to "existing problems."

Earlier this year, tensions developed between the Vatican and Israel when the Holy See's ambassador to Israel initially decided to boycott a Holocaust memorial service because of allegations that during World War II Pope Pius XII was silent about the mass killings of Jews.

 

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195127524397&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

 

30 jaar na historisch bezoek president Sadat van Egypte aan Israël

Het is vandaag precies 30 jaar geleden dat president Sadat van Egypte op de Ben Goerion Luchthaven landde. De volgende dag bracht hij een historisch bezoek aan de Knesset, dat de eerste vrede tussen Israël en een Arabische staat inluidde. Dat bezoek maakte een grote indruk op het Israëlische publiek.

 

De vrede zou echter een koude vrede blijken, en weinigen zullen er nu nog zo lyrisch over schrijven als het Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken in onderstaande terugblik.

 

Sadat werd mede vanwege zijn vredesverdrag met Israël in 1981 vermoord. De laatste keer dat zijn opvolger Moebarak Israël bezocht was bij de begrafenis van Rabin in 1995. En een succesvol exportprodukt van Egypte is tegenwoordig antisemitische literatuur.

 

 

Wouter

____________

Nov 19, 2007
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Newsletter
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign+Relations/Bilateral+relations/30+years+Egyptian+President+Sadat+visit+to+Israel+19-Nov-2007.htm

30 years since Egyptian President Sadat's historic visit to Israel

Thirty years ago, on Saturday night the 19th of November 1977, the plane of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat landed at Ben-Gurion Airport near Tel Aviv. This courageous, historic first visit by an Arab leader to Israel, and the speech he gave at the Knesset in Jerusalem, is to this day credited with changing the geopolitics of the entire Middle East, opening the path for peace between Israel and the Arab world, and shaping a new agenda of political relations in the region.

( Statement to the Knesset by PM Begin - 20 Nov 1977 )

Two years after Sadat's visit, at the end of 1979, Israel and Egypt signed a comprehensive peace agreement. Today, as we mark Sadat's historic visit, our nations have known more years of peace than of confrontation and conflict, years in which open dialogue and cooperative ventures have been possible. In the present reality, and in the spirit of President Sadat's vision, the two states enjoy cooperation which is reflected in periodic meetings and various joint committees:

1. A joint military committee, which convenes twice yearly on a regular basis, in addition to ongoing communication between the armies to coordinate military-security issues;

2.  A joint economic committee to promote economic-trade cooperation between the two countries;

3. A joint agricultural committee, convening twice a year and conducting an ongoing dialogue. This is the most veteran of the three committees and the most active. Since being founded in 1981, it has helped launch hundreds of agricultural projects aimed at improving both countries' agricultural expertise and capabilities. To date this cooperation has resulted in the establishment of dozens of joint agricultural farms and joint professional training courses; thousands of Egyptians have participated in various agricultural courses in Israel, 150 of them just in the past year.

The QIZ (Qualified Industrial Zones) agreement occupies a central place in the relations between Israel and Egypt. Signed in 2004, this agreement makes it possible for Egyptian companies that use Israeli components to export their wares to the United States, duty free. This successful model of international cooperation could be emulated by other states. And it has indeed been successful - in 2006 reciprocal trade between Israel and Egypt totaled some $200 million, compared to only $59 million in 2004, signifying a more than threefold increase over the period prior to the agreement.

Another important element in the economic relations between the two counties is the natural gas agreement, in which a huge deal was signed in 2005 between an Egyptian company and an Israeli company. The deal covers the purchase of Egyptian gas by the Israeli company for the sum of $2.5 billion over the next five years.

Cooperation between Egypt and Israel also takes place in areas such as tourism, transportation, communications and health.

On the diplomatic plane, the peace treaty has made a great contribution on both the bilateral and the regional level. In the face of difficult events such as the Lebanon War, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the intifada, and the war in Iraq, the peace between Israel and Egypt has proven to be stable and solid, showing that the desire for peace is a priority for both peoples, and demonstrating its strategic value over other approaches. Today these relations form a basic premise for every regional diplomatic development and provide support for the continuation of the peace process in general and with the Palestinians in particular.

As part of the diplomatic relations between Israel and Egypt, an ongoing dialogue takes place between the countries on various subjects, including sensitive and problematic issues. The frequency of meetings between the state leaders reflects the strength of the relations. Prime Minister Olmert has met three times with President Mubarak over the past two years for talks on relations between the two states and on promoting the peace process.

Many meetings also take place on the ministerial level in both countries. For instance, the Israeli Foreign Minister has visited Cairo three times this year, with one of the trips devoted to meeting with representatives of the Arab League; and her Egyptian counterpart came twice to Israel in the past year. Official visits were also paid by the Minister of Defense, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Science, Culture and Sport, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Labor, the Minister of Communication, and others, who met with their counterparts in Egypt.

Despite the progress, much still remains to be done apropos the peace between the two countries, such as bringing the populations themselves closer together, encouraging a broader cultural dialogue, increasing tourism, and getting better acquainted. Israel aspires to have the peace with Egypt, which is already considered to have borne real fruits in the intergovernmental dialogue, turn into a lively, productive peace on the level of the two peoples and two cultures as well.

The two nations must dedicate the coming years to this objective. That was how President Sadat saw our shared reality in his vision of peace, and that is how, 30 years later, it should be.

Arabische Knessetleden verklaren Arabische vrijwilligers tot 'melaatsen'

Wie in Israël niet in militaire dienst hoeft of kan, kan op vrijwillige basis een alternatieve sociale dienstplicht vervullen gedurende een jaar. De Arabische Knessetleden zijn echter fel gekant tegen deelname van Arabische jongeren aan deze 'national service', en verklaren vrijwilligers die zich hier toch voor aanmelden tot 'melaatsen'. Zoiets heet volgens mij een 'getto-mentaliteit'.

Hieronder een uitgewogen commentaar van Haaretz.

 

 

Wouter

__________________________

Last update - 10:08 14/11/2007

Lepers? 

By Haaretz Editorial  tags: Arabs, Israel
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/923919.html

 

Opposition to young Arabs volunteering for national service unfortunately unites all Arab MKs. An Arab rap group has composed a song protesting the possibility, rallies have been held, signs have been posted, and MK Jamal Zahalka has said he will consider anyone who volunteers a "leper." One can understand the refusal to cooperate with an establishment that has discriminated against Arabs since the inception of the state. But those who sincerely want to promote equality between Jewish and Arab citizens cannot support such an isolationist attitude.

It is difficult to be an Arab in a state that earmarks Jewish National Fund land only for Jews, where residential communities deny Arabs the right to join them, where the Knesset legislates a citizenship law that prevents family unification between Israeli Arabs and their Palestinian spouses.

But all who value equality must demand more Israelization of the Arabs. Meanwhile, the Arab leadership is demanding more Palestinization, explaining that its opposition to national service stems from its fear that it is an attempt to make the Arabs more Israeli.


National service is an attempt to improve young Arabs' chances of integration into society. It is not the first step on the road to making such service mandatory. That is why the national service administration was established outside the defense system. Arab leaders' suspicions may be understandable, but it is hard to accept the sweeping incitement they have expressed.

The campaign against volunteering for national service is liable to be understood as opposition to shared civic life, even egalitarian civic life.

This is not military service by the back door, as Arab community leaders try to claim. Rather, it is an alternative that enables everyone who is exempt from military service, no matter what the reason, to choose a volunteer activity for one year. The service is not forced on anyone, and it benefits the volunteer more than it does the country.

For 18-year-olds, this is an opportunity to step outside the bubble into which they were born, and feel - to some extent - equal to those who serve in the Israel Defense Forces, as well as to receive university benefits that currently are given only to army veterans.

From the outset it was clear that the ultra-Orthodox would not be pleased with volunteer service in secular settings, so they have been offered national service in their communities. Less clear is the desire of the Arabs to close themselves off, using an argument similar to that of the ultra-Orthodox - the fear of Israelization of the youth, that is, the fear that they might integrate too much into Israeli society and lose their national identity. It might be expected that the Arabs would view national service as a means to leverage their personal advancement, to break down walls and to increase equality.

The Arab political leadership that is afraid to lose its young people to "Israeliness" may be more fearful of losing them as voters. As it inveighs and incites against those who volunteer for national service, it is working against its own public, and only encouraging parties, like Yisrael Beiteinu, that claim that Israeli Arabs will never be Israelis.

Campagne voor journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury uit Bangladesh

Zowel Amerikaanse congresleden als organisaties voor persvrijheid zetten zich al jaren in voor de Bangladese journalist en uitgever Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, die zich tegen het gevaar van islamitisch extremisme en voor verdraagzaamheid uitsprak in zijn krant, en bovendien pleitte voor erkenning van Israël. Toen hij in 2003 het vliegtuig naar Israël wilde nemen om in Tel Aviv een schrijverssymposium over de rol van cultuur in vredeswerk toe te spreken, werd hij op de luchthaven van Dhaka gearresteerd, omdat het inwoners van Bangladesh verboden is om Israël te bezoeken.

 

We berichtten al over hem op 13 oktober 2006: Bangladesh Journalist Choudhury on Trial for Supporting Israel

 

En nadien: Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury: dissident in Bangladesh / Moslim Zionist Shoaib Choudhury uit Bangladesh

 

Een nieuwe campagne van zijn steungroep poogt bedrijven aan te spreken die handel drijven met Bangladesh. Iedereen kan zijn zaak steunen door brieven en mails te sturen naar de genoemde bedrijven.

 

 

Wouter

______________

 

Bangladesh Editor SHOAIB CHOUDHURY NEEDS OUR HELP -- URGENT

 

November 15, 2007, was supposed to be just another one of the seemingly endless string of pro forma court appearances for Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury.  It was his 36^th in the 31 months since his release from prison.  They are pure harassment carried out in a deliberate effort to silence him.  They are draining his physical, financial, and emotional resources and all have the same tedious and soul-numbing pattern :  Shoaib is called to appear as the court opens; he is forced to sit for hours upon hours; and finally, the judge tells him that he is ordered to return in another few weeks.  Bad enough; but November 15 was not more of the same.  After making Shoaib wait for several hours -that did not change- Judge Azizul Haque berated him because the Supreme Court had not yet heard him appeal.  He then went to the Public Prosecutor and asked him what he thought should be done.  Ehsanul Haque Shomaji replied that the judge should revoke his bail.

 

Now, government spokesmen have been telling to leave them be, that the matter is in the hands of the court, and that the government really cannot interfere.  That certainly does not sync with what happened on November 15!  The military-backed government's action was illegal, as well, since bail is guaranteed under Bangladeshi law while the appeal is pending.  But little has been done in Shoaib's case that accords with the law; radical Islamists still rule the roost in Dhaka, and call the tune to which the government dances  lies and transparent delaying tactics.  They have told me explicitly that they plan to 'wait us out' on this.

 

Eventually, Shoaib's bail was restored, but only until December 13 when he again faces potential re-incarceration.  That will be the fifth attempt to throw him back in prison since we secured his release.  Even though the judge and public prosecutor acted in gross violation of Bangladeshi law, the government refuses to take any action.  All of it underscores Shoaib's precarious position while the admittedly false and capital charges remain pending.  It brings home starkly how his freedom--perhaps his life--remain in danger.  But each one of you can do something to help Shoaib and the cause of justice.

 

Garment exports to the West, especially the United States, are the lifeblood of the Bangladeshi economy.  The holiday shopping season is upon us, and retailers depend on these sales for their economic health.  I do not like the word, boycott, but I do have a choice where to spend my own money.  Personally, I do not want to support an economy that openly supports radical Islamists (the government has admitted numerous times that this is the sole reason why the charges remain) and oppresses heroes who oppose the radicals.  Everyone can exercise that same choice.  I have listed the top importers of Bangladeshi textiles below and am asking everyone to contact each of them.  (If you are not in the US, write to the top importers in your country or we can help you identify them if you want.)  Tell them that you will refrain from patronizing them until they either stop purchasing Bangladeshi goods or until Bangladesh drops the admittedly false charges against Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury - a man who has been honored for his fight against radicals and his support of interfaith understanding by the US Congress, European Parliament, Australian Senate, and others; who has been awarded numerous international prizes for his struggle.  Yet, the Bangladeshi government -in defiance of them all- still harasses this man and threatens him with a potential death sentence for those same efforts.  Remind them that there are plenty nations who would love to supply them with their textile products.  Why do they choose to buy from Bangladesh when it gives aid and comfort to our enemies.

 

Each of you can be a human rights champion by doing that; you can do even by getting others to do the same.  The Bangladeshi government has turned a deaf ear to international pleas for justice, appeals to human rights and a free press, and even requests by the United States Congress.  They have spurned offers to help them with various problems they face, all because they refuse to "anger the [Islamist] radicals," as they have told me again and again.

 

 

WAL-MART, INC.

H. Lee Scott, Jr.                                                             Bob Walton
President and Chief Executive Officer                               Chairman, Board of Directors
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.                                                     Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
702 S.W. 8th Street                                                       702 S.W. 8th Street
Bentonville, Arkansas 72716                                           Bentonville, Arkansas 72716
Phone: +1-479-273-4000                                                 Phone: +1-479-273-4000

Wal-Mart's Global Ethics Office: ethics@wal-mart.com

Congressman:   John Boozman (R AR-3) He also was the Republican floor leader for HR64 on Shoaib's behalf.
Senators:          Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D) and Mark Pryor (D)

 

THE GAP, INC.

Robert J. Fisher
Chairman of the Board of Directors and Interim Chief Executive Officer
Gap, Inc.
Two Folsom Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
USA
Phone: 650-952-4400

The Gap's Board of Directors: board@gap.com

Corporate Compliance Department: corporate_compliance@gap.com

Congressmanwoman:  Nancy Pelosi (D CA-8)  She is also Speaker of the US House.
Senators:                   Diane Feinstein (D) and Barbara Boxer (D).

 

NIKE, INC.

Philip H. Knight                                                 Mark Parker
Chairman of the Board of Directors                      President & Chief Executive Officer
Nike World Headquarters                                   Nike, Inc. Nike, Inc.
One Bowerman Drive                                         One Bowerman Drive
Beaverton, OR 97005-6453                                 Beaverton, OR 97005-6453
Phone: 1-800-344-6453                                      Phone: 1-800-344-6453

Nike's Corporate Responsibility Governance: nikeresponsibility@nike.com

Congressman:   David Wu (D OR-1)
Senators:          Ron Wyden (D) and Gordon Smith (R)

VF CORPORATION

Mackey J. McDonald                                         Eric C. Wiseman
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                  President and Chief Operating Officer
105 Corporate Center Blvd.                                105 Corporate Center Blvd.
Greensboro NC 27408                                       Greensboro NC 27408
Phone: 336.424.6000                                         Phone: 336.424.6000

Cindy Knoebel, Vice-president for corporate communication: corporate_communications@vfc.com

Congressman:  Coble (R NC-6)
Senators:         Elizabeth Dole (R) and Richard Burr (R)

 

PHILLIPS-VAN HEUSEN CORPORATION

Emanuel Chirico
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation
200 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
USA

Phone: 212-381-3500
Fax: 212-381-3950

Congresswoman:           Carolyn B. Maloney (D NY-14)
Senators:                      Charles Schumer (D) and Hilary Rodham Clinton (D)

 

This is something everyone can do, and Shoaib is depending on us all.  He has stood up against those who would kill us, even at the risk of his own life.  Let us all stand with him.  The time is right.  Bangladesh has refused the carrot; perhaps it is time for the stick.

 

 

Dr. Richard L. Benkin
http://www.InterfaithStrength.com
Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury's Brother and Defender
+1-847-922-6426

 

De haat industrie: antisemitische literatuur uit Egypte

Zo wordt in een land dat bijna 30 jaar geleden vrede sloot met Israël over Joden geschreven. Het blijft shockerend, en de Westerse stilte hierover blijft verbluffend. Durven we niks te zeggen in het licht van onze eigen geschiedenis? Of schuiven we het hele probleem van het antisemitisme (het Arabische antisemitisme is voor een deel uit Europa 'geimporteerd') het liefst onder een dik tapijt? 

 

Het Vaticaan was onlangs nog zeer verbolgen over het feit dat het er door Israël van werd beschuldigd zich tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog niet duidelijk tegen de Jodenvervolging te hebben uitgesproken. En hoeveel kinderen leren op school dat Luther, behalve zijn 14 befaamde stellingen, ook een en ander over de Joden te zeggen had?

 

Op de website van de Israëlische regering wordt als volgt over Egypte gesproken, precies 30 jaar na het historische bezoek van Saddat aan Israël (19 november 1977): 

 

Two years after Sadat's visit, at the end of 1979, Israel and Egypt signed a comprehensive peace agreement. Today, as we mark Sadat's historic visit, our nations have known more years of peace than of confrontation and conflict, years in which open dialogue and cooperative ventures have been possible. In the present reality, and in the spirit of President Sadat's vision, the two states enjoy cooperation which is reflected in periodic meetings and various joint committees:

Despite the progress, much still remains to be done apropos the peace between the two countries, such as bringing the populations themselves closer together, encouraging a broader cultural dialogue, increasing tourism, and getting better acquainted. Israel aspires to have the peace with Egypt, which is already considered to have borne real fruits in the intergovernmental dialogue, turn into a lively, productive peace on the level of the two peoples and two cultures as well.

 

 

Wat een vriendelijke, overbeleefde taal in het licht van de walgelijkste antisemitische propaganda die vanuit Egypte over miljoenen moslims wordt uitgestort. Mooie vrede is dat. Misschien moet Israël gewoon eens heel erg kwaad worden, of bij iedere ontmoeting met een Egyptenaar erop wijzen dat deze toch niet 'de zoon van een varken' een hand gaat geven, en hij die morgen nog bloed van Palestijnse kinderen bij zijn ontbijt dronk, en niet lang tijd heeft want dadelijk moet hij naar een zeer belangrijke vergadering met de Wijzen van Zion om te bespreken waar ze de volgende oorlog zullen laten uitbreken. 

 

Het wordt in ieder geval tijd dat er een punt van wordt gemaakt, want het is een van de grootste obstakels tot vrede in het Midden-Oosten.

 

 

Ratna

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

 

The hate industry: a review of anti-Semitic literature published in Egypt in recent years and sold at the Cairo International Book Fair. Such literature, marketed from Egypt across the Arab and Muslim world, is designed to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish people, virtually justifying the use of violence against them.

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/eng/eng_n/hate_ind_1107e.htm

 

 

A selection of anti-Semitic books, including The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, sold at the Cairo International Book Fair (January 24-February 4, 2007).

Overview

1. The present Information Bulletin reviews seven anti-Semitic books purchased at the Cairo International Book Fair, held between January 24 and February 4, 2007 . Held annually in Egypt , the book fair attracts hundreds of publishing houses from across the globe, many of them being from the Arab and Muslim world.

2. Egypt is the Arab world's biggest center of publishing anti-Semitic literature. Such literature is marketed across the Arab and Muslim world, distributed through the Internet, and sold every year at the Cairo International Book Fair. Such literature is also marketed to such Arab fairs as the 17th Arab Book Fair, held in Qatar in December 2005. ¹ The books covered here, including new versions of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, are a representative sample of the extensive "industry" of anti-Semitic literature produced by Egyptian book publishers. The anti-Semitic literature is also targeted against the State of Israel and the Zionist movement, with hatred against the US , the West, and Christianity being a fairly common theme as well.

3. The books reviewed recycle lies, fabrications, and anti-Semitic myths rooted in classical European and Islamic anti-Semitism. Characteristically, the Jews are said to possess all manner of negative qualities and are presented as the source of evil and cause of corruption everywhere in the world. The Jews are accused of striving to take over the world and blamed for all the wars and revolutions ever to befall mankind. Their holy books—the Torah (claimed to be falsified by the Jews) and the Talmud—are presented as a list of instructions for the Jews to murder gentiles and take over the world. Defamations and lies, such as the use of gentile blood for baking the Passover matzos or the claim that Jews are the descendants of monkeys and pigs, are recycled over and over again in those anti-Semitic books.

4. As is the custom in Egypt, the authors of the anti-Semitic books, full of lies and mindless drivel, hold academic and religious degrees and serve in social or official capacities (such as Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Hijazi al-Saqa, who holds a PhD in Comparative Research from Al-Azhar University, or Ibrahim Abu Dah, general manager and editor-in-chief of the oppositionist weekly Al-Siyasi al-Misri). Some anti-Semitic book publishers are big, such as Madbuli Publishing, one of Egypt 's largest. All that combines to give an air of credibility and scientific objectivity to the lies and defamations targeted against the Jewish people.

5. That anti-Semitic literature, whose publication and distribution go against the spirit of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, has a negative impact on Israeli-Egyptian relations, spreading hatred against the Jews across the Arab and Muslim world as well as Arab and Muslim communities in Western countries. ² Thus, the anti-Semitic myths, lies, and drivel take hold in the consciousness of those exposed to such literature, demonize and delegitimize the Jews, and lay the foundations for acts of violence against them.

6. Despite its ability to impose strict censorship, the Egyptian government nevertheless allows the publication of anti-Semitic books (including The Protocols of the Elders of Zion ) and statements widely distributed through the written and electronic press. It allows that phenomenon to exist as part of a policy designed, as we understand it, to hinder the process of normalization with Israel, as an expression of its displeasure with Israel in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as a factor contributing towards Israel's isolation in the Middle East, and as a pressure release valve, mostly on the part of the radical Islamic opposition.

7. Following are the books reviewed in the present document: ³

a. "The Nature of the Jews [as reflected] in the Torah and the Talmud, by Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Hijazi al-Saqa ( Cairo , Maktabat Zahran Publishing, 2003).

b. " Israel 's Follies and the Lies of Zionism—Religion and State", by Ibrahim Abu Dah ( Cairo , Maktabat Zahran, 2003).

c. "The Complete Version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion ", by Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Hijazi al-Saqa ( Cairo , Maktabat Zahran Publishing, 2003).

d. "The Jews and the New Crusaders, the Religious and Political Controversy", by Muhammad Younes Hashem ( Cairo , Dar al-Ibda' lil-Sahafa wal-Nashr wal-Tawzi', 2005).

e. "The Divine Inspiration and its Reversal, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion ", by Dr. Baha al-Amir ( Cairo , Madbuli Publishing, 2006).

f. "The Children of Israel and the Lie of Semitism", by Dr. 'Ayid Taha Nassef ( Cairo , Mu'assassat Taibe lil-Nashr wal-I'lam, 2005).

g. "Secrets of the Bastions of the False Messiah in the Hidden Island Triangle, the Wandering Jew and the Bermuda [Triangle] Region", by Muhammad Issa Daoud ( Cairo , Madbuli al-Saghir Publishing, 2005).

2007		2005
A selection of anti-Semitic literature sold at the Cairo International Book Fair (January 2007)		A selection of anti-Semitic literature published in Egypt and sold at the Qatar International Book Fair (December 2005)

For the book reviews click here.

Appendix A  

Selected list of Information Bulletins published by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center on anti-Semitic literature published in Egypt

1. "The Grand Mufti of Egypt in the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion – a "fictitious book" that "has no truth to it"; in his article he categorically denies having written the foreword to the 2003 edition of The Protocols , which was attributed to him" (May 15, 2007).

2. "Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism: the Iranian media gave wide coverage to the Holocaust denial conference held in Cairo by marginal opposition parties. The conference was rife with anti-Semitic propaganda, and the director waved The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and repeated the lies it contained" ( January 7, 2007 ).

3. "The Arab hate industry: Egypt continues as a center for the publication of crude anti-Semitic literature encouraging hatred for Israel, the Jewish people and the West, and in effect justifying the use of violence against them" (October 29, 2006).

4. "Monitoring anti-Semitic publications issued in the Arab countries: two anti-Semitic books published in Egypt in 2005 preach hatred of the Jewish people, the state of Israel and the Zionist movement (with no distinctions made between the three) and provide religious Islamic sanction for violence against them" (January 8, 2006).

5. "Exporting Arabic anti-Semitic publications issued in the Middle East to Britain : anti-Semitic books ( The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf ) issued in Egypt and Lebanon are sold in bookstores in London " ( October 10, 2005 ).

6. " The Protocols of the Elders of Zion still a hit on the Egyptian book market: Two new versions of The Protocols, published in Egypt in 2003, are offered for sale in Cairo's bookstores and, in our assessment, are marketed throughout the Arab and Muslim world" (January 25, 2005).

7. "Anti-Semitism in the Contemporary Middle East" (April 2004; the Egyptian section).

8. "A new Arabic edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was issued in Egypt in July 2002, by the same company that publishes the weekly establishment newspaper, Akhbar al-Youm, one of the five large publishing houses still under Egyptian government control" (January 2004).

9. "The Arab Information Center: An independent publishing house operating in Egypt, on behalf of Palestinian radical Islamists and in which members of the Egyptian political opposition are also involved, openly conducts an extensive, ongoing, anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian propaganda campaign. The Center's crudely anti-Semitic publications, preaching hatred and inciting terrorist acts against Israel , the Jews and the Zionist movement (as well as the United States and Britain ). They are written by various (sometimes distinguished) Arab scholars and distributed (usually to subscribers) throughout the Arab and Muslim world, to Muslim communities in the West, to the Palestine Authority (PA)-administered territories and even to Israeli Arabs" (January 2004).

---

¹ For a review of anti-Semitic books sold at the International Book Fair in Qatar, where the most prominent anti-Semitic publishing houses were from Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon, see Information Bulletin: "The Arab hate industry: Egypt continues as a center for the publication of crude anti-Semitic literature encouraging hatred for Israel, the Jewish people and the West, and in effect justifying the use of violence against them" (October 29, 2006).

² For an example of exporting a Protocols edition from Egypt to London, see Information Bulletin dated October 10, 2005: "Exporting Arabic anti-Semitic publications issued in the Middle East to Britain: anti-Semitic books ( The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf ) issued in Egypt and Lebanon are sold in bookstores in London".

³ For additional anti-Semitic books published in Egypt and reviewed in earlier bulletins of the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center , see Appendix.

__,_._,___

Is Israël een Joodse staat?

Na bijna 60 jaar nationale onafhankelijkheid worden de Joden vreemd genoeg nog steeds veelvuldig als religie en niet als natie beschouwd. Hoewel ik meen dat de Joden evenveel recht hebben om van Israël een religieuze staat te maken als ieder ander land hier recht op heeft, is het meest kwalijke aan Erekats opmerking dat hij niet bereid is de Joden als natie met nationale rechten te beschouwen. De meest beleden religie in een land drukt altijd in bepaalde mate zijn stempel op een staat. Daar komt bij dat er maar één staat is waar de Joden dominant zijn, één plek op de wereld waar koosjer eten en rust op de sabbath een vanzelfsprekendheid is.

Een land wordt echter pas een religieuze staat genoemd wanneer religie en staat niet gescheiden zijn, en bijvoorbeeld de religieuze wetgeving in de rechtsspraak wordt gevolgd. Orthodoxe Joden hebben genieten sommige privileges, maar die reiken niet tot in de rechtbank. Opvallend is natuurlijk weer de dubbele maatstaf achter de aantijging dat Israël een op een specifieke religie gebaseerde staat is, zoals onderstaand artikel duidelijk maakt.   

 

Ratna
____________

Boston Globe

Is Israel a Jewish state?

By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / November 14, 2007
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/11/14/is_israel_a_jewish_state/

IN ADVANCE of the upcoming diplomatic conference in Annapolis, Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced the other day that he expects the Palestinian Authority to finally acknowledge Israel's existence as a Jewish state. A newly arrived visitor from Mars might wonder why this should even be an issue - after all, Israel is a Jewish state. If the more than 55 countries that make up the Organization of the Islamic Conference are entitled to recognition as Muslim states, and if the 22 members of the Arab League are universally accepted as Arab states, why should anyone balk at acknowledging Israel as the world's lone Jewish state?

Yet Olmert's demand was rebuffed. Saeb Erekat, the senior Palestinian Authority negotiator, said on Monday that Palestinians would refuse to recognize Israel's Jewish identity on the grounds that "it is not acceptable for a country to link its national character to a specific religion."

In fact, there are many countries in which national identity and religion are linked. Argentinian law mandates government support for the Roman Catholic faith. Queen Elizabeth II is the supreme governor of the Church of England. In the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan, the constitution proclaims Buddhism the nation's "spiritual heritage." The prevailing religion in Greece," declares Section II of the Greek Constitution, "is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ."

In no region of the world do countries so routinely link their national character to a specific religion as in the Muslim Middle East. The flag of Saudi Arabia features the shahada - the Islamic declaration of faith - in white Arabic script on a green background; on the Iranian flag, the Islamic phrase "Allahu Akbar" (God is great") appears 22 times. And then there is Erekat's own Palestinian Authority, whose Basic Law provides in Article 4 that "Islam is the official religion in Palestine."

Clearly, then, Erekat and the Palestinian Authority do not refuse to accept Israel's legitimacy as a Jewish state out of some principled opposition to linking national and religious identity. Perhaps, our visiting Martian might surmise, their objection is simply tactical: Are the Palestinians withholding formal recognition from Israel in order to extract some corresponding recognition for themselves?

But that explanation also doesn't hold water. Olmert has repeatedly endorsed the creation of a sovereign state of Palestine. "We support the establishment of a modern, democratic Palestinian state," he says. "The existence of two nations, one Jewish and one Palestinian, is the full solution to the national aspirations and problems of each of the peoples." Last week he went so far as to suggest that a plan for Palestinian peace and statehood might be achieved "even before the end of President Bush's term in office."

So why won't the leaders of the Palestinian Authority acknowledge the obvious - that Israel is the Jewish state? The Jewish connection to Palestine is a matter not just of rich historical fact, but of international law. When the League of Nations entrusted Britain with the Mandate for Palestine in 1922, it expressly recognized "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and the rightfulness of "reconstituting their national home in that country." By that point, Britain had already transferred 80 percent of historic Palestine to Arab rule - today's Muslim kingdom of Jordan. All that remained for a Jewish state was the residual 20 percent. But there, at least, it was clear that the Jewish community was "in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance," as Winston Churchill underscored at the time.

Eighty-five years later, that small sliver of the Middle East is home to nearly half the world's Jews. If that isn't a Jewish state, what is?

Yet all this is beside the point. The refusal of the Palestinian Authority to acknowledge Israel as a legitimate Jewish state isn't a denial of reality; it is a sign of their determination to change that reality. Like Arab leaders going back a century, they seek not to live in peace with the Jewish state, but in place of the Jewish state. Olmert can show up at Annapolis bearing Palestinian sovereignty on a silver platter, with half of Jerusalem thrown in for good measure. He will not walk away with peace. On the contrary: He will intensify the Arab determination to replace the world's one Jewish state with its 23rd Arab state.

The key to Arab-Israeli peace is not Palestinian statehood. It is to compel the Arab world to abandon its dream of liquidating Israel. As a matter of national self-respect, Olmert should repeat his demand that the Palestinians acknowledge Israel's Jewish identity - and make it nonnegotiable. If Israel cannot insist even on so fundamental a point of honor, it has already lost more than it knows.

Mohammed Al-Dura: tussen Kim Phuc en Pallywood?

Het is een van die zaken waar je als leek eigenlijk weinig over kunt zeggen: de één is vast overtuigd van Israëls schuld, de ander is vast overtuigd dat het allemaal in scene is gezet. En het is vooral iets waarvan ik het moeilijk vind te begrijpen waarom het niet allang duidelijk is. Er is bijna 30 minuten film en er waren allerlei mensen aanwezig tijdens Al Dura's dood.

Als Israël Al Dura niet heeft doodgeschoten, waarom heeft het leger dat dan niet vanaf het begin duidelijk gezegd, en France 2 toendertijd voor het gerecht gedaagd met de eis tot rectificatie en openbaarmaking van al het filmmateriaal?

En als France 2 zo overtuigd is van haar gelijk, waarom dan niet direct al het materiaal op YouTube gezet, for all to see?

Zes jaar na dato is onder zware druk 18 minuten film vrijgegeven, die volgens verschillende bronnen geen eenduidig antwoord geeft op de vraag of en hoe Al Dura is gedood. Waarom het er allemaal toe doet, vraag je je wellicht af, er zijn sindsdien honderden Palestijnse jongetjes door het Israëlische leger gedood.

"The al-Dura report has had terrible consequences, causing hate against Israel and Jews," Karsenty told Haaretz. "We have to repair the damage now, before it's too late."

Al Dura werd een symbool voor Palestijnse onschuld en Israëlische wreedheid, omdat hij van dichtbij in koelen bloede doodgeschoten zou zijn zonder zelf iets te hebben gedaan. De beelden van hoe zijn vader hem probeert te beschermen en hij in zijn armen sterft, zijn hartverscheurend. Uit de Vietnam Oorlog weten we, dat een foto het beeld en de beeldvorming van een oorlog kan bepalen. Al Dura is de Kim Phuc van de tweede intifada. We weten ook hoeveel mogelijkheden er zijn om beeldmateriaal te manipuleren. Tijdens de Libanon Oorlog zijn daar een paar sterke staaltjes van uitgekomen. Zoals de dood van Al Dura staat voor de onderdrukking van een heel volk, zo staat een in scene gezette of aan de verkeerde partij toegeschreven dood voor de grootschalige manipulatie en propaganda van Palestijnse kant, en de kritiekloze manier waarop Europese media daar in trappen.

 

Ratna

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

Fri., November 16, 2007 Haaretz

French court examines al-Dura footage
By Haaretz correspondent
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/924226.html

PARIS - A French appeals court screened footage today of the September 2000 television report on the death of Muhammad al-Dura, in a case of defamation brought against French television and its correspondent in the Middle East, Charles Enderlin.

The veteran journalist was accused in 2004 by Philippe Karsenty, the owner of an internet site, of broadcasting a staged report on the al-Dura killing, and of instigating hate against Israel and Jews throughout the world.

Karsenty was convicted in the original defamation trial, but a second trial ended with the judge demanding to examine the full footage of the al-Dura report before deciding whether Karsenty was guilty of defamation or not.

Enderlin explained in court each segment of the 18-minute footage filmed on September 30, 2000, by his cameraman Talal Abu Rahma at Netzarim junction while Enderlin was in Ramallah: the street battles with dozens of people throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at an IDF outpost, an interview with a Fatah official, and the incident involving Mohammed al-Dura and his father in the last minute of the video.

Karsenty challenged Enderlin's explanations. "The boy moved his head after we heard the cameraman say he was dead. How do you explain this?" asked Karsenty. "Why is there no blood on their shirts although they had bullet wounds?"

Enderlin said that Talal Abu Rahma did not say that the boy had died, but that he was dying. The journalist maintained that only the Israelis shot at the al-Duras, explaining that he could hear the difference between the shooting of the Israeli rubber bullets and Palestinian regular ones.

Karsenty repeated several troubling details. He pointed out that an article by senior journalists Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte in 2004 noted some staged scenes filmed by Abu Rahma in the first part of the footage, which they had examined at French TV studios with former le Monde journalist Luc Rosenzweig.

Jeambar and Leconte called on French TV to launch its own internal enquiry, citing a possible lack of journalistic standards, but did not not share the theory of a possible staging of al-Dura's death.

"The al-Dura report has had terrible consequences, causing hate against Israel and Jews," Karsenty told Haaretz. "We have to repair the damage now, before it's too late."

Tension was high in the courtroom yesterday, and some pro and anti-Enderlin militants were arguing loudly, causing some commotion. Dozens of Jewish bloggers were present at the courthouse.

Serge Kovacs, a friend and co-worker of Enderlin, said Enderlin was falsely accused and has become a "new Dreyfuss." Enderlin told journalists that there was no new "affair," and suggested they come to the next hearing on February 28.

Karsenty said that he intends to counter-attack French TV by pointing out that they only presented 18 minutes out of the 27 minutes Abu Rahma originally claimed to have shot.

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

Nov 15, 2007 The Jerusalem Post

French court sees footage of al-Dura
By HÉLÈNE SCHOUMANN, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT
PARIS
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195036613140&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

More than seven years after Muhammad al-Dura, 12, was apparently shot to death during clashes between IDF troops and Palestinian gunmen at Gaza's Netzarim junction, a small packed courtroom in the Palais de Justice here viewed raw footage of the incident Wednesday.

Among those present in court were Charles Enderlin, the Israel correspondent for the France 2 TV station whose original report of the September 2000 incident blamed Israel for the killing, and Philippe Karsenty, the director of the media watchdog group Media-Ratings, whose assertion that France 2's coverage was "a hoax" sparked the ongoing legal battle.

Members of the French media did not appear to be present among the approximately 60-strong audience; some members of the public could not get into the small room where the uncut footage provided by France 2 was screened from 2:15 p.m. to 4 p.m. Although the footage itself ran for a total of 18 minutes, it was stopped at several points so Enderlin could comment on what was happening.

The footage shown in court, however, was inconclusive. Toward the end, the tape appeared to show Dura briefly putting his hand to his forehead to check what was happening around him, and moving his leg.

The footage also featured his father shouting out, "Muhammad is dead! Muhammad is dead!"

Enderlin said after the hearing that France 2 had produced all the raw footage it had, based on "an original tape that was kept in a safe until now. We presented a DVD that was made in front of a bailiff from the original tape... not from the various copies you can find here and there."

France 2's original September 30, 2000, broadcast showed 55 seconds of edited footage from the Netzarim junction. Enderlin was not present at the junction, but voiced over the footage according to information given to him by cameraman Talal Abu Rahma. He explained in his news report that the footage showed a father and his son caught in a gunfight and that the boy was killed by shots coming from the IDF position at the Netzarim junction. France 2 offered the video for free to other television stations.

Wednesday's hearing followed a September demand from the French appeals court judge that France 2 show it the raw video footage of the events.

Following the incident, al-Dura became an instant icon for Palestinian suffering at the hands of Israeli brutality. However, the IDF, which initially apologized for the death, concluded after an investigation that the boy could not have been hit by Israeli bullets.

When Karsenty branded France 2's video of the incident a hoax, he was sued and found guilty of slander. His appeal prompted the current legal battle.

Two months ago, the deputy commander of the IDF Spokesman's Office, Col. Shlomi Am-Shalom, wrote to France 2 asking for the unedited footage. Am-Shalom stressed that the IDF had "ruled out" the notion that al-Dura was killed by Israeli fire.

The case is set to resume on February 27.