Israel staakt verzet tegen omstreden Egyptische cultuurminister als hoofd van UNESCO

 

Er zijn heel wat bezwaren in te brengen tegen de Egyptische kandidaat voor de UNESCO. Wat te denken van een cultuurminister die heeft verklaard dat hij "Israelische boeken zou verbranden als hij ze in een Egyptische bibliotheek aantrof"? Hosni beweerde dat dit citaat uit zijn verband was gerukt, maar in welk verband zou zo'n citaat dan wel kunnen deugen? En is het is niet het enige citaat. Hosni heeft zich vaker denigrerend uitgelaten over de Israelische cultuur als zijnde barbaars, racistisch en afwezig (ze jatten alleen van andere culturen..).

 

Egypte heeft hoegenaamd een vredesverdrag met Israel en diplomatieke betrekkingen, maar Hosni weerde Israelische boeken en films van internationale festivals in Cairo. Hij voert al meer dan 20 jaar het Egyptische cultuurbeleid uit van een 'koude vrede' met Israel zonder genormaliseerde betrekkingen. De door de Egyptische staat gecontroleerde media krijgen intussen ruim baan om de ergste antisemitische propaganda te spuien, zoals dramaseries over de 'Protocollen van de Wijzen van Zion'.

 

In september is de stemming over het nieuwe hoofd van UNESCO.

 

Wouter

_____________


Netanyahu lifts objection to anti-Israel Egyptian minister as head of UNESCO
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent

Last update - 00:41 01/01/2009
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1087976.html

 

Israel agreed to lift its objection to the appointment of Egypt's vehemently anti-Israeli culture minister as head of UNESCO, following a recent meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Farouk Hosni, who has served as Egypt's culture minister since 1987, has declared that if he could, he "would burn Israeli books in Egyptian libraries." Despite such rhetoric, Hosni is a leading candidate for the top spot in the UN's education and cultural organization, having been recommended by Mubarak.

As part of a secret agreement, reached during their May 11 meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh, Netanyahu promised Mubarak that Israel would cease the international campaign it has waged against Hosni's appointment during the past year. It is still unclear whether Netanyahu, who is known for his insistence on the principle of quid pro quo in Israel's relations with the Arab world, received something from the Egyptian leader in return.

Exact details of the "arrangement" between Netanyahu and Mubarak were kept secret and were not reported to the media, even though such practice would constitute a radical change of Israeli policy.

However, a senior source in the Prime Minister's Office confirmed the development, but insisted the decision was made following a personal request by Egypt's president and several European leaders. Moreover, the source said Israel's gesture was part of a broader set of understandings, in which Egypt will respond in similar fashion at a future gesture. "We received a substantive and worthwhile return. We would not have done this unless Israel's interests benefited," the source said.

Netanyahu's promise to lift Israel's objections contradicts the position of the Foreign Ministry. The instructions from the Prime Minister's Bureau caught Foreign Ministry officials by surprise; the ministry subsequently circulated a telegram on the new directive to several Israeli delegations abroad who had until then been waging a public and diplomatic campaign against Hosni's appointment to UNESCO.

"Following Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit to Egypt, and at the request of President Mubarak and in line with understandings with Egypt, Israel has decided to lift its objections to the appointment of Farouk Hosni to the post of UNESCO secretary-general, changing our position to not-opposed," the classified telegram dated 14 May reads.

Netanyahu has said on several occasions recently that he is interested in normalizing ties with the Arab world. However, Hosni has stood at the forefront of Egyptian opposition to a normalization of ties with Israel. The Egyptian culture minister is strongly opposed to normalizing relations with Israel and made public anti-Israel statements, which drew attention because of their implied anti-Semitism.

As culture minister, Hosni banned Israeli films from international film festivals in Cairo and forbid an Israeli book stand at the international book fair there.

Hosni has also been quoted in the media as saying that Israel and the Jews are not cultured and steal from the cultural heritage of other nations.

Following criticism, Hosni gave a conciliatory interview to Yedioth Ahronoth

Ministerie van Defensie Israel dreigt met rechtszaak over buitenposten Westoever

Zou er dan nu eindelijk ernst worden gemaakt met het ontruimen van de illegale buitenposten? Het zou niet de eerste keer zijn dat juist een rechtse regering actie onderneemt tegen nederzettingen.

 

RP

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

Ministry may sue W. Bank council heads
yaakov katz and tovah lazaroff , THE JERUSALEM POST

May. 25, 2009
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212459045&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

 

The Defense Ministry is considering taking legal action against local council heads in the West Bank for permitting the establishment of illegal outposts.

The review is being conducted by the Defense Ministry's legal counsel Ahaz Ben-Ari, and the findings will be submitted to Defense Minister Ehud Barak in the coming days. The idea is to find the council chiefs - under whose jurisdiction and direct support the outposts were established and maintained - legally responsible.

"The council chiefs in Judea and Samaria are elected officials and are responsible for enforcing the law," explained one defense official.

"As a result they can't support illegal construction, just like council heads in the rest of Israel can't."

To date there are some 101 unauthorized outposts in the West Bank, which were built between 1995 and 2005.

Although no new permanent outposts have been established under the auspices of the council in the last four years, construction has continued in many of those already existing. According to Peace Now, in the last two years 309 structures, most of them temporary, were added to the outposts.

Shmuel Klein, of the Legal Forum for Israel, said the issue here was political and not legal. "As a result, nothing will come out of this," he said. If this is about services to the outposts, than the council had an obligation to service those citizens in their area, he added.
"Children who live in an unauthorized outpost have a right to go to school."

The council heads, he said, did not build the outposts. More to the point, the legal situation of the outposts was not different from that of other communities within the green line that were constructed without plans or authorization.

Binyamin Regional Council head Avi Ro'eh charged that the Defense Ministry was seeking ways to lob accusations against settler leaders.

Hagit Ofran of Peace Now said it was about time the council heads were held accountable for the unauthorized outposts in their regions.

"I hope that this time it will be taken care of seriously. Law enforcement is not about running after young activists or hilltop youth, but dealing with the structures that support them," Ofran said.

According to a state comptroller's report in 2004, the Housing Ministry was also involved in the construction of at least 18 unauthorized outposts.

Dani Dayan, who heads the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, dismissed the Defense Ministry's legal threat as an act of "inconceivable intimidation."

Ephraim Sneh over het Israelisch-Palestijnse vredeskamp

Voor vrede en een tweestatenoplossing zijn, voor Israelische concessies en inzien dat ook de Palestijnen legitieme nationale rechten hebben, is één ding. Bepleiten dat Israel (en de VS, en de EU) met Hamas moet gaan onderhandelen over vrede, dat de VS en de EU een regering waarin Hamas vertegenwoordigd is financiëel en militair (bv. door training van de veiligheidsdiensten) moeten steunen, bepleiten dat de VS zich softer tegenover Iran opstelt, en ervoor pleiten dat steun aan en (handels-)relaties met Israel afhankelijk worden gemaakt van allerlei voorwaarden waaraan Israel eerst moet voldoen, is iets geheel anders. Dit tweede wordt ten onrechte vaak ook 'pro-Israel' genoemd, maar is het natuurlijk niet.

 

RP

-----------

When is a "pro-Israel" group not pro-Israel?

When Doves Can't Flock Together
Opinion - http://www.forward.com/articles/106286/
By Ephraim Sneh
Published May 20, 2009, issue of May 29, 2009.

 

 

Twenty-four years ago this month, then-defense minister Yitzhak Rabin appointed me military governor of the West Bank. In two years in that post, I learned that reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians is both feasible and necessary.

 

In 1988, after I had retired from military service, Rabin and then-foreign minister Shimon Peres asked me to lead the first secret negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization. Since then, I have dedicated most of my energies to promoting Israeli-Palestinian peace.

 

In this effort, I have enjoyed the cooperation of American Jewish groups that shared my commitment to achieving peace with the Palestinians. I considered the stances of these organizations to be in line with the positions of the Zionist peace camp in Israel.

 

Recently, however, I have come to feel that we no longer share the same convictions, that our paths have diverged. Some American Jewish organizations that are at the forefront of pushing for peace have begun adopting positions that contradict Israel's most basic security needs and that ultimately are at odds with the goal of Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation.

 

We have seen dovish Jewish organizations advocate including Hamas in a Palestinian unity government (and support the idea of offering American aid to such a government), fight against the swift enactment of tough sanctions against Iran and vehemently oppose military action against the Islamic Republic - action that may eventually prove to be necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

 

Certainly, I do not consider a military operation to be the preferred option. It is the very last resort. But we cannot afford to be complacent about the nature of the threat we face.

 

Iran is ruled by a despotic theocracy, with a horrendous record of human rights abuses. This regime is fueled by a fanatical ideology of hatred: Hatred of the West, of its culture, of democratic values. Hatred of Jews and their state. Hatred of Muslims who believe in peace and democracy.

 

The Iranian regime has one main ambition: to turn Iran into a superpower, leading more than a billion Muslims all over the world. Developing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, controlling the corridors for oil and gas, undermining moderate governments in the Middle East - these are the Islamic Republic's means of establishing hegemony.

 

A permanent-status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians would be a devastating blow to the Iranian regime's hateful ideology. If Palestinians reach an accord with the "godless Zionists," why should the average Iranian in Tehran or Isfahan hate Israel? This is why the Iranian regime does everything in its power to impede progress between Israelis and Palestinians.

 

Hamas is the main tool that the ayatollahs use to disrupt the peace process. Iran has sent large sums of money and huge amounts of explosives, arms and ammunition to Hamas. Thanks to this generous support, Hamas was able to conquer Gaza in June 2007.

 

Between Hamas - which represents a minority of Palestinian society, according to all available polls and studies - and the Palestinian majority, there is an unbridgeable divide. This divide is not primarily about Israel. Instead, it concerns the character of a future Palestinian state: Will it be a Taliban-like state or a modern, democratic one? Will there be a cinema in Nablus? Will folklore festivals be permitted in Qalqilya? Will the beach in Gaza be open simultaneously to men and women? There is no compromise between these two visions for Palestinian society. That is why reconciliation talks between Hamas and Fatah fail time and again.

 

Moreover, a Palestinian government that includes Hamas will never accept an agreement with Israel based on the Clinton parameters for peace. Hamas would force any unity government to adopt negotiating positions that would be unacceptable to even the most dovish Israelis.

 

But Gaza is not the only front in Iran's offensive. The soft, naïve attitude of the Western democracies toward Iran has enabled the ayatollahs to reap more achievements. Just as Hamas took over Gaza, Hezbollah has tightened its hold over Lebanon. Iraq, meanwhile, is moving gradually into the Iranian orbit. Who will be Iran's next target?

 

The Islamist-fascist regime in Tehran must be stopped, not hugged. Effective economic sanctions are the best way to make it impossible for the regime to govern, and to create a revolutionary situation in Iran.

 

Wasting time with futile talks, with gestures to the ayatollahs, will pull the rug out from under the feet of moderates in the Middle East. Policies that postpone confronting the danger that a nuclear Iran poses to Israel and other American allies in the region will bring about a nuclear arms race or make a military operation against Iran unavoidable.

 

I remain firm in my belief in the necessity of Israeli-Palestinian peace. But I also believe that achieving peace requires a willingness to stand up to the enemies of peace.

 

==============

Ephraim Sneh has served as Israel's minister of health, minister of transportation and deputy minister of defense. He is the author of "Navigating Perilous Waters: An Israeli Strategy for Peace and Security" (Routledge, 2005).

 

 

Het lijkt Netanjahoe en Barak menens met ontruimen buitenposten Westoever

"The outposts have proved that they are stronger than any Israeli government, and more governments have fallen than outposts. If Bibi does this, we will take him out politically."

 

Aldus de extreem-rechtse activist Baruch Marzel. Zowel Netanjahoe als Barak hebben echter gezegd dat het de regering ernst is met het verwijderen van de illegale buitenposten. Als de regering echt wil, is het opruimen van buitenposten zo gebeurd, en gemakkelijk vergeleken met de ontruiming van de Gazastrook.

 

RP

-----------

PM to Likud: Criticizing outpost policy takes focus off Iran
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

May. 25, 2009
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212463995&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

 

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Monday called for Likud faction members to refrain from speaking out against the removal of illegal outposts in the West Bank, so as not to harm the fight against the Iranian threat.

 

He defended the recent government focus on evacuating unauthorized outposts, saying "Even during the election campaign I said that we're a law-abiding country, and that we would deal with illegal outposts. If possible - through dialogue."

Regarding his relationship with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Netanyahu said, "The defense minister and I work in coordination. He doesn't run an independent state."

"We're not [living] in ordinary times," he told MKs. "The danger is gaining on us. The most dangerous threat to a living organism is not to identify danger. My role, first and foremost, is to secure the future of the State of Israel. This comes before anything else."

The prime minister also emphasized the importance of strong Israel-US relations, and commented that "the situation between 1996 and 1999 [Netanyahu's previous term as prime minister] is not like today."

He went on to stress that the national priorities must match the current needs of the country, saying, "There must be broad national unity as must as possible, so off to stave off the danger."

He concluded his address by reiterating his call for unity.

Earlier Monday, Barak emphasized that the government must continue with its plan to evacuate unauthorized outposts.

"We will have dialogue - but if not, we will act unilaterally, while using an appropriate amount of force if necessary... It is not a matter of months or years... we will act in the coming weeks," Barak said during a Labor faction meeting Monday afternoon.

Earlier Monday, reports surfaced that the Civil Administration had issued zoning notices for nine unauthorized outposts in the West Bank over the last 24 hours. In retaliation, settlers distributed pamphlets entitled "Fighting for our Homes" which list five steps to take in the case of an evacuation, according to an Army Radio report.

The first step entails preparation for immediate reconstruction in the case of an evacuation and the amassing of construction supplies in order to do so. The next step was inspired by one of the ten plagues of Egypt, the plague of the frog, and calls for the immediate building of new outposts and expansions of existing ones every time there is an evacuation in order to "humiliate the defense minister."

Far right-wing activist Baruch Marzel promised that these steps and others would change the reality on the ground and would bring about the fall of Netanyahu's government. "The outposts have proved that they are stronger than any Israeli government, and more governments have fallen than outposts. If Bibi does this, we will take him out politically."

The outposts in question include Havat Shaked, Mitzpe Yitzhar, Yitzhar Darom, Ramat Gilad, Hazon David, Givat Haroe, Maaleh Rehavam and Mitzpe Lahish.

Zoning notices are posted on illegally-erected buildings, and are used to inform people that they are residing in an unauthorized area.

Defense officials said the notices had been posted ahead of the planned evacuation of the outposts.

The High Court of Justice is still in the midst of proceedings for six of the outposts served. All nine have previously been served with zoning notices, the last one as recently as in 2007. The notices have all since expired and new ones had to be issued.

Notices are expected to be served against five more outposts over the coming days, according to the Civil Administration.

Analyses van ontmoeting Obama en Netanyahu

Een analyse van de ontmoeting tussen Obama en Netanjahoe, door Barry Rubin, die het vooral voor Netanjahoe opneemt, en door Ami Isseroff, die op beiden het nodige aan te merken heeft.

Barry Rubin heeft in een ander artikel vooral Obama besproken. Een van zijn centrale punten is dat de verschillen kleiner zijn dan zowel anti-zionisten als rechtse zionisten beweren. De eersten hopen dat Obama nu eindelijk Israel eens zal 'aanpakken', de tweede klagen over de kritische houding tegenover Israel, en zijn bang dat hij het tot extreme concessies zal dwingen die een zeker einde van de staat betekenen.

 

RP

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

Son of Barry Rubin's analysis of the Obama-Netanyahu meeting

http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2009/05/son-of-barry-rubins-analysis-of-obama.html

Yes folks, this is the exciting sequel to Barry Rubin on Obama-Netanyahu meeting,

 

Rubin is absolutely right to point out that there is no evidence of a huge rift between Israel and the United States. Pro-Israel pundits have lined up to insist the meeting was a catastrophe for Israel, and to mourn the supposed break between Israel and the United States. Anti-Israel pundits have lined up behind them to gloat about the break between  Israel and the United States. But there is no evidence whatever that any such break took place. Leaders who hold a joint press conference are not doing it because there is a break between them.

 

Nonetheless  the meeting, at least the public part, was not all that it should have been, and some of the aftermath was not too promising either. We do not know what was said in private, but what was said in public was not all that it should be.

 

What was missing:

 

Iran - The plan for Iran seems to be to not have a plan. That's unacceptable. Obama said the US would probably reassess the appease-Iran policy at the end of the year, but that will be too late to stop Iran's nuclear program with sanctions. Sanctions take months to organize and years to take effect. The Arab states can't be happy about that either.  

 

Hezbollah - Some of you might remember this organization and their colorful leader Hassan Nasrallah. Less than three years ago, Israel found it necessary to fight a war against them - the Second Lebanon War. They may be about to win an election in Lebanon. They are proteges of Iran. If Obama and Netanyahu have any opinions about how to stop them from taking over Lebanon, they aren't saying.

 

Syria - All mention of this country seemed to have been absent from the discussion as well.

 

Palestinian Issues - While Barack Obama was quite specific about what Israel needed to do to meet its obligations, he was vague about the Palestinians. There was no explicit condemnation of the Hamas, a genocidal organization that declares over and over that it is intent on destroying Israel and will never recognize Israel. Realistically, there can be no peace while Hamas rules in Gaza, and if the Fatah-Hamas unity talks ever succeed, that will be the end of any prospect for peace with the Palestinian Authority. There was no mention of "moderate"  Palestinian Authority attempts to delegitimize Israel and to distort and remake history, in order to write out the Jewish people in the land of Israel, as though our ancestors were never here, never lived in Jerusalem before 1948, never had a capital in ancient ("Arab East") Jerusalem.

 

There was no explicit demand by Obama that the Palestinians or Arabs recognize Israel as the national home of the Jewish people. The Arab refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to self determination is at the heart of the conflict. Unless that problem is addressed, we haven't moved beyond 1920.

 

Netanyahu: What was missing from Benjamin Netanyahu was

 

1)  A statement supporting a two state solution. Netanyahu did everything but endorse a two state solution, and therefore got all of the disadvantages of concessions, with none of the advantages. The foreign press, in which we may have to include Ha'aretz, will go on noting pointedly that  the "right-leaning" government of Benjamin Netanyahu refuses to support a two-state solution, making it look as though  Israel is the villain holding up the peace process.

 

2) A clear statement of Israel's red lines - all of them, put on record in the presence of the President of the United States. If  Israel is not going to give up East Jerusalem or admit Palestinian refugees, that was the time to say it. Bibi did raise the demand for Arab recognition of a Jewish state.

 

3) A pro-active peace plan that would put the pressure on the Arab side to deliver concessions, as well as giving Obama a "prize" to take to the Arabs.  

 

After the meeting:

 

What happened around the meeting and after it was fairly hostile. CIA director Leon Panetta was sent to warn Israel not to attack Iran, sending a loud and clear public "all clear" signal to Iran. Secretary of State Clinton loudly and publicly warned Israel to freeze settlement activity. That is her right. But when all the warnings all the time are directed only to one party, and there is no warning to Palestinians to stop incitement and stop claiming that all of Israel belongs to the Palestinians, no warning to stop firing rockets from Gaza and smuggling arms, it really does look to the world as if the only obstacle to peace is Israel.  

 

There is no break between Israel and the United States, but that is in large part a reflection of the style of Barack Obama. Obama tries mightily to be a friend of everyone and to exhibit unity on all fronts. He went to Europe and got rebuffed on every side, and came back smiling. There is probably never going to be a break between Obama and anyone, if he can help it. The dirty work will be done by underlings. In Obama's upcoming speech to the Muslim world, look for a lot of style and not much substance. That's where Obama's emphasis is, on the premise that a smile costs nothing and takes less muscles than a frown. It's a good policy, and Barack Obama has a magnetic smile.

 

But if nothing is done about Iran, we may all be buried with a smile on our faces.

 

Ami Isseroff

================================

Detailed Analysis of Obama-Netanyahu Meeting/Part 2: What Netanyahu Said

http://www.gloria-center.org/blog/2009/05/detailed-analysis-part-two.html

 

(You are welcome to post or forward to others but please include a link to this site. Anyone not linking to this site will be considered to have acted improperly, except with written permission)

Obviously, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's job was to make a good impression including the flattery of President Barack Obama. He thus thanked him:

"For your friendship to Israel and your friendship to me. You're a great leader--a great leader of the United States, a great leader of the world, a great friend of Israel, and someone who is acutely cognizant of our security concerns. And the entire people of Israel appreciate it, and I speak on their behalf."

But this is more than flattery. Netanyahu is defining him as a great leader in part because he is a great friend of Israel. In other words, he is locking him in on his commitments to what Obama called an "extraordinary relationship." This is the standard which the American president has set for the relationship and Netanyahu will hold him to it.

He also wants to define common interests: "We share the same goals and we face the same threats." This happens to be true though it may take some time for Obama to recognize it.

Netanyahu also wants to stake out his own identity as a peacemaker:

"The common goal is peace. Everybody in Israel, as in the United States, wants peace. The common threat we face are terrorist regimes and organizations that seek to undermine the peace and endanger both our peoples."

But how is peace to be obtained? Who is the common enemy?

A. The Iran issue

"In this context, the worst danger we face is that Iran would develop nuclear military capabilities. Iran openly calls for our destruction, which is unacceptable by any standard. It threatens the moderate Arab regimes in the Middle East. It threatens U.S. interests worldwide. But if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it could give a nuclear umbrella to terrorists, or worse, it could actually give terrorists nuclear weapons. And that would put us all in great peril."

This is broadening out the threat beyond Israel to encompass U.S. interests and those of moderate Arab regimes, as I have long argued.

So Netanyahu reinforced what he wanted to, without mentioning the engagement part:

"So in that context, I very much appreciate, Mr. President, your firm commitment to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear military capability, and also your statement that you're leaving all options on the table."

B. Israel-Palestinian Negotiations

On this issue, Netanyahu stressed his eagerness to cooperate, his "desire to move the peace process forward." Indeed, he was ready to move very fast: "And I want to start peace negotiations with the Palestinians immediately. I would like to broaden the circle of peace to include others in the Arab world, if we could…."

Here came Netanyahu's most quoted lines, which should be quoted fully:

"I want to make it clear that we don't want to govern the Palestinians. We want to live in peace with them. We want them to govern themselves, absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel. And for this there has to be a clear goal. The goal has to be an end to conflict. There will have to be compromises by Israelis and Palestinians alike. We're ready to do our share. We hope the Palestinians will do their share, as well. If we resume negotiations, as we plan to do, then I think that the Palestinians will have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state; will have to also enable Israel to have the means to defend itself. And if those conditions are met, Israel's security conditions are met, and there's recognition of Israel's legitimacy, its permanent legitimacy, then I think we can envision an arrangement where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side in dignity, in security, and in peace."

Here is Netanyahu's view of the two-state solution. If the Palestinians meet Israeli conditions, then there will be the "side by side" arrangement Obama has raised.

This is critical: a two-state solution is not something given as a present at the beginning of negotiations, it is a reward for the proper compromises that enable such a peace to succeed.

That is the key point of the Israeli position, regarding not just Netanyahu but in practice across much of the political spectrum.

Netanyahu fully recognizes the interrelationship of issues and says both are important:

"It would help, obviously, unite a broad front against Iran if we had peace between Israel and the Palestinians. And conversely, if Iran went nuclear, it would threaten the progress towards peace and destabilize the entire area, and threaten existing peace agreement."

And so he concludes, "We see exactly eye to eye on this—that we want to move simultaneously and then parallel on two fronts: the front of peace, and the front of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capability."

Many might view this as papering over differences but it really isn't. The point Netanyahu makes is that the two countries agree in principle whatever differences there are on details. And after all, this is the same basic position Obama has stated, though there is a bit of reversal on apparent priorities.

And then Netanyahu raises another key Israeli point: It is quite possible to make things far worse:

"If we end up with another Gaza -- the President has described to you there's rockets falling out of Gaza -- that is something we don't want to happen, because a terror base next to our cities that doesn't call -- recognize Israel's existence and calls for our destruction and asks for our destruction is not arguing peace.

"If, however, the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, if they -- if they fight terror, if they educate their children for peace and to a better future, then I think we can come at a substantive solution that allows the two people to live side by side in security and peace and I add prosperity, because I'm a great believer in this."

What is the point, after all, of pushing through a two-state solution which:

--Makes Palestine a radical Islamist state tied to Iran and Syria.

--Creates a Palestine in which every school, mosque, and media institution teaches Palestinians that all of Israel is theirs and they must strive to conquer it. This would be a Palestine full of incitement to violence against Israelis which will inspire scores of people to become terrorists and thousands of others to support them.

--Sets off a new Israel-Palestine cross-border war, with the Palestine government either looking the other way or actively assisting terrorists.

--Creates a Palestine that invites in Iranian, Syrian, or other armies, or gets missiles from them targeted at Israeli cities.

--Extends the conflict another generation by using the state as a base for a "second stage" to finish off Israel.
And if Israel were to take risks and make concessions will they be reciprocated? And if the United States and Europe makes promises to Israel will they be kept?

After all, the 1990s' peace process taught Israelis the answer was "no" on both counts.

This is Israel's central point: peace, yes, but only a real, lasting, and stable situation which makes things better rather than worse.

A two-state solution only if it isn't a two-mistake anti-solution.

=============

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org. His blog, Rubin Reports is at http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/

 

3 Fatah veiligheidsmensen ter dood veroordeeld door Hamas

Het is al een vooruitgang dat deze Fatah leden überhaupt werden berecht voordat ze worden gefusilleerd, maar het blijft natuurlijk onmenselijk. Het is ook zeer twijfelachtig of de verdachten een advocaat hadden, en of de rechter onafhankelijk was. Hoger beroep zal ook wel niet mogelijk zijn. De SP en GroenLinks zullen er niet mee zitten, die bewaren hun verontwaardiging voor Palestijnen die door Israel worden gedood.

 

RP

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

 

Last update - 15:22 24/05/2009       
Hamas sentences Fatah security men to death over 2007 killings
By The Associated Press
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1087775.html

 

 

A Hamas military court on Sunday sentenced three former Fatah security men to death by firing squad for the 2007 killing of two journalists at a pro-Hamas newspaper.

 

The killings took place in May 2007 during factional fighting between the rival Fatah and Hamas factions. The following month, Hamas routed pro-Fatah security forces and seized control of Gaza.

 

The Hamas-controlled Interior Ministry announced the death sentences on its Web site, saying defendants Shadi Madhoun, Read Magossi and Shadi Ahmad were guilty of other unspecified crimes as well. It did not say when the executions would be carried out.
The men were accused in the deaths of Suleiman Ashi, an economics editor for the Felesteen newspaper, and Mohammed Abdo, a manager at the same publication.

 

According to news accounts at the time, Ashi and Abdo were dragged out of their taxi and gunned down at a Fatah roadblock in Gaza City.

 

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights condemned the use of the death penalty and called on Hamas and Fatah, which controls the West Bank, not to carry out executions.

 

 

Christelijke graven op Westelijke Jordaanoever vernield

Natuurlijk doet de Palestijnse Autoriteit het voorkomen alsof dit een uitzondering is op de regel dat moslims en christenen vredig en harmonieus naast elkaar leven, maar de realiteit is dat veel christenen zich onder druk voelen staan en soms zelfs worden geintimideerd, en de emigratie van christenen daar vooral mee te maken heeft.

 

RP

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

Last update - 19:55 24/05/2009       
Vandals desecrate Christian graves in West Bank
By Reuters
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1087795.html

 

 

Vandals desecrated some 70 graves in two Palestinian Christian cemeteries on Sunday in what a Palestinian Authority official said was a rare attack on the Christian minority in the occupied West Bank.

 

A church official in the village of Jiffna near Ramallah where the attack took place called in Palestinian security officials to investigate, but neither he nor the investigators said they had any initial clues who was responsible.

 

"This unfortunate incident has brought Muslims and Christians closer and many from the Muslim community have shown solidarity with us and have condemned this action," said Greek Orthodox Church official George Abdo.

 

He added that grave stones had been smashed and metal and stone crosses knocked off graves in the attack, which was discovered on Sunday. The head and a hand of a statue of the Madonna adorning one of the graves were also broken off.

 

Abdo said it was the first time such an incident had occurred in the village.

 

Issa Kassissieh, a Palestinian Authority official and adviser to President Mahmoud Abbas on Christian affairs, said he believed it was "an isolated act against Christian symbols".

"Palestinian Christians and Muslims have always lived in harmony in the Holy Land," Kassissieh said.

 

Jiffna, northeast of Ramallah, is home to some 1,600 inhabitants, about two thirds of whom are Christians from the Greek Orthodox and Catholic communities.

 

The Palestinian Authority says 50,000 of the West Bank's 2.5 million Palestinian population are Christian.

Many Christians have emigrated over the past 30 years. Pope Benedict called on Christians not to abandon the Holy Land during a visit to the region earlier this month.

Netanyahu wil in nederzettingen bouwen voor natuurlijke groei

 

Ik vind de Israelische positie acceptabel, maar het zou wel duidelijk moeten zijn dat het om de grotere blokken gaat die mogelijk Israelisch blijven in een vredesverdrag en dat het ook echt alleen om kleinschalige woningbouw gaat voor de natuurlijke groei, en er geen geheel nieuwe wijken worden gebouwd die ook 'nieuwe mensen' trekken.

 

De nederzettingen zijn een obstakel voor vrede, maar zeker niet het enige obstakel. Obama zou er goed aan doen naast de nadruk op de nederzettingen ook de andere obstakels zoals de haat en opruiing in Palestijnse en Arabische media, en het vasthouden aan het zogenaamde 'recht op terugkeer' van miljoenen nakomelingen van Palestijnse vluchtelingen, ook duidelijk te veroordelen. De Palestijnse Autoriteit houdt de wens terug te keren bewust in stand en versterkt die middels allerlei activiteiten en organisaties, Nakba vieringen etc. Ook de Arabische staten dragen hieraan bij door de vluchtelingen in kampen te houden en geen gelijke rechten te geven. In het verleden hebben zowel de PA als Arabische staten voorstellen om de vluchtelingen permament te huisvesten afgewezen.

 

Half a million Jews live in settlement blocs and smaller outposts built in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, all territory captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East War.

 

Er leven ongeveer 280.000 kolonisten op de Westelijke Jordaanoever, en nog eens ca. 200.000 Israeli's in Oost Jeruzalem. De NYT suggereert hier dat de Klaagmuur, de Joodse wijk in de oude stad en de Olijfberg allen 'Arabisch' zijn. Dat is absurd. Er woonden voor 1948 duizenden, welllicht tienduizenden Joden in wat nu Oost Jeruzalem heet, zowel binnen als buiten de stadsmuren, en Israel heeft dan ook een legitieme claim op bepaalde delen van Oost Jeruzalem.

 

"Moving on outposts is relatively easy" compared to freezing growth of larger settlements, which Israel wants to keep as part of any future peace deal, the Israeli official said.

 

Als het verwijderen van buitenposten zo makkelijk is, waarom lukt het de verschillende regeringen dan maar niet? Sharon beloofde het al aan de VS, daarna Olmert, en nu Netanjahoe.

 

RP

-----------

May 24, 2009
Netanyahu Defies Obama on Israeli Settlement Freeze
By REUTERS
Filed at 10:37 a.m. ET
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/05/24/world/international-us-israel-palestinians-settlements.html?pagewanted=print


JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday rebuffed U.S. calls to impose a freeze on all settlement activity in the occupied West Bank, setting the stage for friction with President Barack Obama.

"We do not intend to build any new settlements, but it wouldn't be fair to ban construction to meet the needs of natural growth or for there to be an outright construction ban," Netanyahu told his cabinet, according to officials.

The note of defiance came less than a week after Netanyahu held talks in Washington with Obama, who wants Israel to halt all settlement activity, including natural growth, as called for under a long-stalled peace "road map."

Netanyahu's comments reaffirmed a position he took in his bid for the premiership in a February election. By natural growth, Israel refers to construction within the boundaries of existing settlements to accommodate growing families.

Obama was expected to prod Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to resume long-stalled peace talks during a major speech in Cairo early next month.

Abbas has ruled out restarting those talks until Netanyahu, whose right-leaning government took office on March 31, commits to a two-state solution and halts settlement expansion.

Obama has surprised Israel with his activism on the settlement issue, but it is unclear how much pressure he will put on Netanyahu to freeze construction entirely, Israeli and Western officials said. Former President George W. Bush called for a freeze but building continued largely unchecked, Israeli anti-settlement advocacy groups say.

Half a million Jews live in settlement blocs and smaller outposts built in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, all territory captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East War.

The World Court says all are illegal. The United States and European Union regard them as obstacles to peace.

Palestinians see the settlements as a land grab meant to deny them a state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

PEACE TALKS

Mark Regev, a spokesman for Netanyahu, said the fate of existing settlements should be decided in negotiations with the Palestinians. "In the interim period, we have to allow normal life in those communities to continue," he said.

Netanyahu has so far balked at committing to entering negotiations with the Palestinians on territorial issues.

A senior Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Netanyahu's government hoped to sidestep U.S. pressure by committing to uproot smaller hilltop outposts built without official authorization, a step also set by the road map.

"Moving on outposts is relatively easy" compared to freezing growth of larger settlements, which Israel wants to keep as part of any future peace deal, the Israeli official said.

Last week, Israel flattened a small outpost near the West Bank city of Ramallah, but residents returned to rebuild.

Ahead of Sunday's cabinet session, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Israel would remove more than 20 other outposts, either through negotiations or with force, but gave no timeline.

===============

(Additional reporting by Allyn Fisher-Ilan and Ari Rabinovitch; editing by Philippa Fletcher)

(For blogs and links on Israeli politics and other Israeli and Palestinian news, go to http://blogs.reuters.com/axismundi)

Canadese universiteit houdt (anti-)Israel debat

 

In Nederland is het nog niet zo extreem, maar ook hier zie je dat organisaties soms een Midden-Oosten studiedag of conferentie aanbieden, en dan uitsluitend mensen die zeer kritisch tegenover Israel staan als sprekers hebben. Men vindt 'evenwicht' niet nodig, want tussen Israel en de Palestijnen is er ook geen evenwicht, en het opkomen voor de zwakkere is belangrijker dan uitzoeken hoe de zaak in elkaar steekt. Juist van een universiteit zou je verwachten dat men geinteresseerd is in verschillende perspectieven, dat men verder kijkt dan schrijnende beelden en makkelijke slogans, dat men alle theorieën en visies aan een kritische analyse onderwerpt.

 

Dat in de VS en Canada, maar ook bijvoorbeeld Engeland, juist de universiteiten vaak bolwerken van antizionisme zijn is zorgelijk. Dit is niet alleen problematisch voor Israel, maar ook voor waar de universiteiten pretenderen voor te staan. Overigens is het opvallend hoeveel historici in Nederland waar het Israel-Palestina betreft vallen voor de Palestijnse propaganda, en alle distantie en academische nieuwsgierigheid laten varen (zoals Thomas von der Dunk, Anton van Hoof en Tineke Bennema).

 

RP

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

Big choice at York University Israel debate

http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2009/05/big-choice-at-york-univeristy-israel.html

 

 

One state or one state, take your pick at the York University debate on "paths to peace." This is a wide and fair choice, really. You can have a secular Palestinian democracy like Syria or an Islamic Republic like Iran. Yes, "peace" can be achieved by destroying your enemy. It would not be the first time that peace was achieved through genocide.

 

Good thing Jeff Halper is invited. No hate-Israel gathering could be complete without Jeff Halper, who has done a monumental job of discrediting the cause of peace and Palestinian rights and turning it into an insane mockery. Halper is a veteran of the hatemongering fake "peace" movement.

 

The worst aspect of these activities is that the bad, fake peace makers inevitably drive out the good ones and make it impossible for them to work by delegitimizing the cause of peace. If the Palestinians do not want self-determination, it is their business, but they needn't try to foist this idea on the Jews.

 

It is really sad that York university has succumbed to this sort of cheap racism and Stalinist debating style. The terror groupies already tried to hold an "Israel Apartheid Week" at York University. You'll be glad to know that one of their speakers was scheduled to be "Sahabphan Jesuthasan. York Student, President, Tamil Students Association." The problem of the Tamil Tigers terrorists, one of the most notorious suicide terror groups, was since settled in a most satisfactory manner, by eliminating the group and killing their head, proving that it is possible to win an assymmetric war. Terrorists are not invincible. Nobody counted the civilian casualties. Sri Lanka declared a national holiday. If you will, it is no legend. Yes, peace can be achieved by wiping out your enemy. However, those who wish for that kind of "peace" should take into account that it is probably their side that will get wiped out.

 

 

YORK UNIVERSITY VS. ISRAEL:

"ACADEMIC FREEDOM" OR ACADEMIC FARCE?

Gerald M. Steinberg

Chair, Political Science, Bar Ilan University

and Executive Director, NGO Monitor

 

 

The President of York University in Toronto has issued a statement attempting to defend his university's sponsorship of an event headlined "Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace", scheduled for June 22 to 24. This response to intense criticism of the program attempts to portray serious criticism as an attack on academic freedom. However, in examining the details and the debate over this event, and in the context of vulgar anti-Israel activities and physical intimidation of Jewish students at York, these bland words are a diversion -- a straw man aimed at deflecting criticism, and blocking the important public debate over the role of university campuses as battlefields in the Arab-Israeli narrative wars that perpetuate the violent conflict.

 

York's defense seeks to answer the public statement issued by Hershell Ezrin, head of the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA). This analysis was based on a careful examination of the speakers and their topics, which reveals that this conference "aims to explore a one-state, bi-national solution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, the imposition of which would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish state. The conference will include a number of speakers who are recognizable for their roles as organizers and outspoken proponents of 'apartheid week' and the Israel boycott movement."

 

Far from an attack on academic freedom, such criticism highlights the very absence of the free exchange in a marketplace of ideas which is the indispensible foundation for academic freedom. The extremely complex history of the Arab-Israeli conflict and multiple dimensions of peace efforts contrast starkly with the narrowly constricted ideologies reflected in the list of 44 speakers. This information is readily available using the internet, and had the eleven sponsors -- six from York, four from Queen's university and a government funded research framework -- exercised "due diligence", they would have found that many of the speakers are virulent anti-Israeli activists, and are far removed from academic work to understand complex issues through research and debate. In other words, it is the conference that constitutes a brutal attack on academic freedom, rather than the analysts and critics.

 

For example, the first speaker on the list is Ali Abunimah, who runs a propaganda internet site known as the "Electronic Intifada", specializing in demonization of Israel through articles such as "Why Israel won't survive".. Abunimah is also affiliated with a political organization (PCHR) based in Gaza that systematically distorts and exploits the language of human rights – also to attack Israel. Abunimah's groups frequently condone Palestinian terrorism using the euphemism of "resistance" and terms like "apartheid" and "racist" in reference to Israel – the exact opposite of promoting compromise and a two state solution. Attempts to feature speakers like Abunimah under the banner of peace research is dishonest, and rather than attempting to prevent this criticism by pretending that academic freedom is at stake, York university officials should welcome the analysis.

 

While the ideological bios and activist records of all 44 speakers would fill dozens of pages (a task that the sponsors at York University should undertake as a public service), a few more illustrations are useful. Jeff Halper is another veteran pro-Palestinian campaigner, far removed from any academic pursuits. He runs a small organization that claims to oppose the demolition of Palestinian houses, but most of his activities are aimed at generating support for the Palestinian narrative. He recently participated in sailing a few small boats from Cyprus to Hamas-controlled Gaza, hoping to engage in publicity-generating confrontations with the Israeli Navy. Halper often appears in support of Naim Ateek, whose speeches include classical antisemitic references, such as accusing Israel of "crucifying Palestinians". The context of Palestinian mass terror attacks, the mangled bodies, and the hatred against Israelis that promotes this inhuman behavior, is entirely erased.

 

An Israeli columnist recently witnessed Halper urging "his Muslim listeners in an American university to reject the Arab Peace Initiative, because it serves the Muslim tyrants. He told his listeners that Israel is actually a force that serves world capitalism, in the framework of the attempt to make enormous populations in the world disappear. The antisemites could not have said it better." To label such activities as promoting peace or remotely connected to university discourse is an insult to intelligent people. Recently, Halper's main benefactor, the European Union, rejected his application for renewed funding, but YorkUniversity – for reasons yet to be explained – is giving him the façade of academic legitimacy.

 

Amidst the long list of speakers, there are also few genuine academics – whom critics might dismiss as fig leaves for the hard-core propagandists -- but even here, the ideological range runs from strongly critical of Israel (but accepting the legitimacy of Jewish sovereign equality) to extremely critical (one-state promoters, tantamount to "wiping Israel off the map".) Although there are many academics whose research goes beyond one-dimensional Israel bashing, and examines the failures of Arab, Palestinian, and Moslem leaders to contribute to peace making, these dimensions are conspicuously absent from the program. In this Orwellian twist, the use of "academic freedom" is a mask for the crude censorship at York.

 

With so many obvious distortions, the defense offered by the President of York University is a farce. Without a free market of ideas, academic freedom, and even the concept of a university, is meaningless. Given a conference which fails to even hint at the complexity of the issues, the result is not censorship, but the transformation of the university into a macabre circus that sells hatred, martyrdom and murder.

 

In a free society, the circus, like the university, is open to all – as P.T. Barnum observed, "There's a sucker born every minute". But in the Middle East, such farces will only serve to fuel the vicious warfare and mass terror which has taken the lives of tens of thousands of Israelis, Palestinians, and others, and is escalating into nuclear confrontation. And York University has become an accomplice in this crime.

 

 

Haaretz geeft verkeerd beeld van beperkingen import Gazastrook

 

In de media wordt het vaak voorgesteld alsof helemaal niets meer Gaza binnenkomt, behalve wat meel en dergelijke. De realiteit is gecompliceerder en genuanceerder, maar een belangrijke bron van deze misinformatie is het Israelische Haaretz, dat ten onrechte als de meest betrouwbare Israelische bron wordt gezien. Niet toevallig is Haaretz het meest kritisch naar Israel, en wordt daarom ook altijd dankbaar geciteerd door antizionisten.

 

Dit is niet de eerste keer dat Haaretz zaken verkeerd of misleidend weergeeft, en dat dit ten nadele van Israel is. Een kritische houding tegenover Israel is geen garantie voor betrouwbare informatie, zoals een 'rechtsere' of nationalistischer signatuur van een krant of organisatie nog niet bewijst dat haar informatie niet klopt.

 

RP

----------

 

May 19, 2009 - CAMERA - by Tamar Sternthal

Ha'aretz Senseless on Gaza

Ha'aretz, it seems, has not learned its lesson. A few weeks ago, the Israeli daily published a series of articles giving voice to Israeli reservists who weeks after serving in Operation Cast Lead alleged war crimes, including indiscriminate killings. Within days, the reported atrocities were found to be nothing more than rumors which the soldiers heard but did not see. By then, however, the claims had been repeated in media outlets around the world, and featured prominently in the New York Times.

This week, Ha'aretz again embroils itself in a campaign of erroneous accusations about Israel, this time concerning Israeli restrictions on goods entering the Gaza Strip. A May 17 page-three article by Amira Hass carries a double-decker seven-column headline proclaiming: "Israel forbids books, clothing and musical instruments to be brought into Gaza Strip." The subheadline adds: "Only 30-40 commercial items allowed in, compared to 4,000 before Shalit abduction." The article is accompanied by a box entitled "Forbidden items: Some of the items banned from the Gaza Strip," illustrating items such as toys, clothing and shoes and electrical appliances.

 

 

Two days later, the news article was followed by an even more extreme editorial headlined "Senseless in Gaza," (May 19), claiming:

Anything that isn't listed as food, medicine or detergent is banned. . .

The crossing between Gaza and Egypt is closed, leaving only the Nahal Oz crossing for necessary items. . .

Even worse – imposing a siege on more than 1.5 million people who cannot build their homes, start up their cars, provide their babies with diapers and baby food, use toilet paper, wash and even read books is inhuman, immoral and a violation of UN regulations.

The factual errors and misrepresentations in both the news article and the Op-Ed are manifold. Has Israel banned toys, books, diapers and toilet paper? A careful reading of Hass' article belies the huge, flashy headline, the highly visible illustrative box and the finger-wagging editorial.

Readers who get to the fourth paragraph of Hass' article learn that in fact:

Gaza merchants are forbidden to import canned goods, plastic sheeting, toys and books, although the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and other aid organizations are permitted to bring them into the strip.

In other words, prominent Ha'aretz headline and angry editorials notwithstanding, toys and books are permitted into the Gaza Strip. The restrictions in question apply to private merchants, not international aid organizations. Yet, Hass buried this vital information three paragraphs after her introductory paragraph, which misleads: "Israel allows only food, medicine and detergent into the Gaza Strip. Thousands of items, including vital products for everyday activity, are forbidden."

A Dirty Business: Diapers and Toilet Paper

Ha'aretz's editorial writers embellish on Hass' already misleading article, alleging that diapers and toilet paper are also prohibited from entering the Gaza Strip.

Unfortunately for Ha'aretz, though, the Palestine Trade Center (PalTrade) contradicts that claim. PalTrade publishes detailed monthly reports about the Gaza crossings. Page 7 of the April 2009 Gaza Crossings Monthly Monitoring Report states:

Table 4, below, itemizes the most recent (March 14, 2009) goods allowed to cross into Gaza through Karem Abu Salem, in addition to wheat and animals feed which is allowed to enter Gaza through Al Montar crossing.

The list includes both diapers and toilet paper. According to PalTrade, personal care products make up 21 percent of the imported goods in April 2009.

Cross-Eyed on Crossings

Ha'aretz again demonstrates its nimble ability to get the facts wrong in stating: "The crossing between Gaza and Egypt is closed, leaving only the Nahal Oz crossing for necessary items. . . " In fact, as PalTrade details, Nahal Oz crossing is not the only crossing for importing items to Gaza. The two other crossings are Al Montar and Karem Abu Salem. PalTrade wrote about the activity of these three crossings for the month of April 2009:

Al Montar Crossing Conveyor Belt was open for 8 days (around a third of the scheduled days) and processed imports of 554 commercial truckloads of wheat and animal feed.

Karem Abu Salem Crossing was open on all scheduled days and processed imports of 1,902 truckloads, primarily of food, and export of 5 truckloads of carnation flowers. . .

Nahal Oz Crossing processed imports of 9.22 million liters of industrial gasoline and 2.5 million kg of cooking gas, not including imports for UNRWA. . . .

Adding Fuel to Fire

Hass also gets her numbers wrong when it comes to industrial fuel needed to run Gaza's power plant. She writes:

The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that during the first week of May, 2.2 million liters of industrial fuel – some 70 percent of the weekly supply required to operate the power station – was allowed into Gaza.

If this is correct, then Gaza's power plant requires 3.14 million liters of fuel every week. Yet, Palestinian sources put that figure at much less. According to Table 2 of the PalTrade report, in April 2009, Israel imported 9,229,37 liters of industrial gasoline, meeting 90 percent of the estimated monthly need of 11 million liters. Extracting from this information, Gaza's power plant requires 2.6 million liters of fuel per week. Thus, when Israel gave the Gazans 2.2 million liters the first week of May 2009, it provided them with 86 percent of their needs — not 70 percent as Hass states.

The information in PalTrade noting that Israel provided for some 90 percent of Gaza's needed industrial fuel supply is also confirmed by a Jan. 6, 2008 affidavit to the Israeli High Court, signed by Rafiq Maliha, the project manager of the Gaza Power Generating Company, who declared under oath that "If the power plant was allowed to receive 360,000 liters daily, it would be able to operate the two gas turbines at full capacity (65 megawatts.)." Based on Maliha's figure, the power plant requires 2.52 million liters a week, which is consistent with PalTrade, not Hass.

What's an Extra Zero?

The subheadline is also factually incorrect. It states: "Only 30-40 commercial items allowed in, compared to 4,000 before Shalit abduction." Hass likewise reports this claim in the second paragraph:

Altogether only 30 to 40 select commercial items are now allowed into the Gaza Strip, compared to 4,000 that had been approved before the closure Israel imposed on Gaza following the abduction of Gilad Shalit, according to merchants and human rights activists.

The May 19 editorial also states: "Among other things, Israel bans the importing of many products to Gaza." Ha'aretz it seems, has greatly exaggerated the post-Shalit abduction restrictions. According to the April 2009 Gaza Strip Crossing Monitoring Report published by the Palestine Trade Center (PalTrade):

Along with the steep reduction in total imports from about 450 truckloads prior to the closure (12 June 2007) to about 110 truckloads thereafter, the list of allowed imports was significantly reduced from over 400 to only 34 types of goods.

Thus, Israel's restrictions on goods allowed into the Gaza Strip as a result of the Hamas takeover and the ensuing killing and capturing of Israeli soldiers on Israeli territory are 10 times less than Hass and Ha'aretz claim.

The Bigger Picture

Now that we've established that Israel does not prohibit the entry of toilet paper, diapers, toys and books into the Gaza Strip, it's worth considering what is prohibited. Is Israel's decision to restrict items like construction equipment, musical instruments and chocolate in light of Gilad Shalit's ongoing captivity and Hamas continuing efforts to build a terror regime "inhuman, immoral and a violation of UN regulations" as the editorial states?

The United Nations itself has used this very tactic – withholding goods from a population to secure the release of a hostage. Wayne Long, a former Army colonel who served as the U.N.'s chief security officer in Somalia from 1993 to 2003, wrote in the New York Times one month ago:

During my 10 years as the chief security adviser for the United Nations in Somalia, my team and I negotiated releases in more than a dozen hostage cases, several of which involved piracy. Some of the hostages were United Nations personnel, and some were not.

In the situations that did not involve United Nations workers, our team was asked by the concerned embassies in Nairobi to pursue cases on their behalf. These countries, whose citizens had been taken hostage, had no presence in fractious Somalia — and we did.

Figuring out how to be of help wasn't easy. Eventually, after long and heated internal discussion in the United Nations security team persuaded the United Nations country team that the most effective approach would be to use humanitarian aid and assistance as a lever to gain release of hostages.

Somalia is pretty much a stateless state. Humanitarian aid and clan association are major centers of gravity. In fact, clan leaders stay in power in part by controlling the distribution of aid. Our strategy was therefore simple: United Nations assistance was withheld from the Somali clan or region by which or in which hostages were being held until those hostages were released. In every case there was a release, and in no case were hostages harmed or ransom paid. (On the downside, no pirates were brought to trial or punished in any way.)

In 1995, for example, the water supply for Mogadishu, the capital, was shut off by the United Nations humanitarian agencies until a hostage who worked for another aid organization was released. On the first day of the shutoff, the women who collected water from public distribution points yelled at the kidnappers; on the second day they stoned them; on the third day they shot at them; on the fourth day, the hostage was released.

On another occasion, in 2000, two French yachtsmen were taken by pirates in their 40-foot sloop off Somalia as they made passage from Djibouti to Zanzibar. The French Embassy in Nairobi asked the United Nations team to help, and I entered into face-to-face negotiations in the remote port of Bossaso.

After demonstrating that the hostages were alive, the pirates demanded $1 million in ransom. I responded that the United Nations would suspend all civic improvement in the region - education, animal husbandry, vaccination, water projects. The aid would resume when the hostages were released.

This drove a wedge between the pirates and their home clan, the Darod. Clan elders put pressure on the pirates. After several weeks, the Frenchmen were released to me in return for resumption of all United Nations humanitarian aid. (I was unable to negotiate the release of the yacht.)

With its facts debunked by Palestinian sources, and its logic contradicted by U.N. actions, it's time to ask Ha'aretz: Who is senseless on Gaza?

 

 

Iraanse kernbom gevaar voor hele Midden-Oosten - en daarbuiten

Velen, met name ter linkerzijde, moeten nog tot dit inzicht komen, en menen dat een Iraanse bom wellicht een goede afschrikking is tegen het koloniale expansionistische oorlogszuchtige illegale racistische zionistische regime. Over het feit dat zo'n bom ook ons kan treffen lijkt men zich minder druk te maken.

 

RP

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

USA Discovery - Mike Mullen: "Iran nuclear bomb would be calamitous"

http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2009/05/usa-discovery-miike-mullen-iran-nuclear.html

 

Joint chiefs of staff head Admiral Mike Mullen has concluded, after much deliberation no doubt, that an Iran nuclear bomb would be calamitous. There seems to have been considerable doubt about this point in the Obama administration, with many people taking the view that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a real nice guy who just needs talking to.

 

The remarks came the day after Iran's president  Ahadinejad announced the country had tested a missile that analysts said could hit Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, a major source of crude oil for the United States. The solid fuel rocket has a range of 2,500 KM. The test annuncement came a few hours after a panel of US and Russian experts concluded definitely that at present Iran only has missiles with half that range. So much for expert opinions.

 

Mullen also said, "The downside, potentially, is absolutely disastrous." What's the upside?

 

According to the Reuters report:

Obama also set a rough timetable for his diplomatic outreach, saying that by the end of this year the United States should have a sense of whether the effort was making progress.

That's very rough. In fact, it is meaningless.

 

At least everybody seems to be on the same page - An Iranian Nuke would not be a GOOD THING. It would be a VERY BAD THING. The Americans are finally beginning to understand what the Saudis, the Israelis, the Bahrainis, the Kuwaitis and everyone else in the Middle East understands. They understand that the Iranian regime is NOT NICE and does not have peaceful and friendly intentions toward its neighbors. If they get the bomb, a lot of people would be threatened, and even more important for Americans, the price of gasoline would be threatened. Now that's really important.

 

But Mike Mullen and the US government are still clueless about what it will take to stop the Iranian effort. Mullen said:

"Major leaders, internationally, have got to come together to arrest this growth or the long-term downside for the people in the world is really, really tragic and drastic,"

Coming together, is not going to do much good unless there is a plan. Sanctions are not going to be effective and thus far China and Russia at least, will not go along with sanctions. It is doubtful that the Swiss, who are major suppliers of gasoline to Iran, would go along either.

 

Mike Mullen have repeatedly and publicly vetoed any Israeli attack on Iran. This removes the teeth from any deterrent threats. Only the prospect of an attack might thwart Iran and prevent the "calamitous" outcome.

 

Ami Isseroff