donderdag 16 september 2010

Voorlopig rapport VN onderszoekscommissie Gaza flotilla naar Ban Ki-Moon


Counting the initial, internal IDF investigation into the matter, there have been at least five formal investigations announced into the flotilla raid, which resulted in the deaths of nine Turkish citizens aboard the flagship Mavi Marmara.
 
Vijf onderzoeken naar een operatie waarbij negen doden vielen. Een operatie gericht tegen het doorbreken van een zeeblokkade van een vijandige entiteit. Uiteraard kunnen alleen Israelische legeroperaties op een dergelijke warme internationale belangstelling rekenen, en worden elders echte oorlogmisdaden gepleegd waar geen haan naar kraait.
 
RP
-----------


The Jerusalem Post
Inquiry panel submits Gaza flotilla report to UN chief
By JPOST.COM STAFF
09/16/2010 11:54
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=188288


Inquiry headed by former New Zealand PM hands Ban preliminary report; UN spokesman: inquiry proceeding "in a positive and collegial manner."

A UN spokesman reported that an inquiry panel submitted a preliminary report to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on the Gaza flotilla attack on the Mavi Mamara, which left nine dead and scores wounded, AFP reported Wednesday night.

Former New Zealand prime minister Geoffrey Palmer and a panel which includes representatives from Israel and Turkey has begun probing the May 31 attack.

The report explained that the the UN did not provide details of the report but a spokesman for Ban said the inquiry was proceeding in "in a positive and collegial manner."

"The panel agreed that in light of the information so gathered, it would examine and identify the facts, circumstances and context of the incident and make findings and recommendations for the prevention of similar incidents in the future," a spokesman for the UN secretary general said.

The panel began its investigation in August amid a slew of inquiries and would-be probes into the flotilla incident, including the ongoing Turkel Committee in Israel, a competing UN investigation from the Human Rights Council, and an independent inquiry from a dissatisfied Turkey.

Counting the initial, internal IDF investigation into the matter, there have been at least five formal investigations announced into the flotilla raid, which resulted in the deaths of nine Turkish citizens aboard the flagship Mavi Marmara.

 
Dov Preminger contributed to this report

Fosfor in mortiergranaten die vanuit Gaza op Israel zijn afgevuurd


Er was veel ophef over het gebruik van witte fosfor door Israel tijdens de Gaza oorlog. Zou het gebruik hiervan door de Palestijnen net zo hard worden veroordeeld en tot net zo veel ophef leiden? Iets in me zegt dat dat wishful thinking is.....
 
RP
------------

Police: Terrorists fired phosphorus shells into Israel
By YAAKOV KATZ , YAAKOV LAPPIN
15/09/2010
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=188206

 
At least 2 of the 9 mortar shells fired during the day contained phosphorus, police confirm; regional council head intends to inform UN of Geneva Convention violation.

Two phosphorous mortars were fired at southern Israel from Gaza on Wednesday, Police Spokesman Micky Rosenfeld told The Jerusalem Post.

"A police bomb disposal team examined a number of mortars that were fired today. We can confirm that two out of the nine mortars contained phosphorous," Rosenfeld added.

Israel Police said it was not the first time that phosphorous shells had been fired at Israel from Gaza.

Haim Yalin, head of the Eshkol Regional Council where the phosphorous mortars landed reacted sharply to the news of the phosphorus mortar attacks. "These weapons have been banned by the Geneva convention. They cause burns among victims and they kill. This is an agricultural area, and we now have to explain to farmers how to deal with burns in light of the phosphorus mortars," he told the Post.

Yalin added that firefighters and paramedics operating in his area would now have prepare for further phosphorous shells. "We are preparing to go back to the situation that we faced before Operation Cast Lead, when we faced continuous mortar, rocket and sniper attacks," he said. On Thursday, Yalin will send a letter to the United Nations to alert the international body of the weapons being directed from Gaza against the civilians who reside in his regional council.

"So long as this autonomous Iranian entity in Gaza continues to exist, we will be fired on. We have received only fundamentalism from Gaza and fire," Yalin said. "There are 50,000 residents who live in this area who are thirsty for peace and a normal life. And we face a Hamas entity that is unwilling to recognize Israel. We are civilians, farmers, students, all being fired on indiscriminately."

He stressed that most of the residents in his area, who live in kibbutzim and farming villages, traditionally voted for left and center parties. "We want peace with the Palestinians, but unfortunately it is disappearing before our eyes," he said.

In the latest Palestinian attack of the day, three mortar shells fired from the Gaza Strip landed in the Eshkol Regional Council region on Wednesday afternoon. Around midday, four mortar shells were fired into southern Israel, also landing in the Eshkol region. No injuries or damage were reported in either attack.

A Code Red alarm sounded in the same area about an hour after the mortar attacks, followed by a loud explosion, believed to be a Kassam-type rocket. No one was injured in the attack.

Earlier on Wednesday, two mortar shells fired from the Gaza Strip landed in the same area, injuring no one. Two rockets were fired from Gaza several hours before the mortar attacks. A Kassam-type rocket exploded south of Ashkelon, causing no injuries or damage. Security forces were searching for the location of the second rocket.

Rocket attacks from Gaza have increased since before the Rosh Hashana holiday, bringing with them an Israeli military response. Predictions in the defense establishment are that Hamas will continue to carry out attacks against Israel as the peace talks progress.

On Wednesday, an IAF strike on a tunnel in Gaza killed one Palestinian and wounded four, according to Hamas security officials. The strike appeared to be retaliation for a spike in Palestinian mortar fire into Israel on Wednesday. The tunnel was intended to be used by terrorists in attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians, according to a statement released by the IDF Spokesman's Unit. 
 

woensdag 15 september 2010

Israel boycot campagne probeert Pete Seeger af te houden van ondersteuning Arabisch-Israelische dialoog

 
Wederom blijkt dat de boycotters tegen vrede zijn en zich juist tegen initiatieven gericht op vrede en verzoening richten. Organisaties als het Arabisch-Israelische Adalah en het Israelische Comité tegen Huisvernielingen (ICAHD) zijn niet voor vrede en tegen een tweestatenoplossing. Ze zijn niet alleen tegen de bezetting, maar tegen Israels bestaansrecht en ontkennen alle Joodse rechten in het land.
 
De afgelopen jaren zijn al veel organisaties en ook kunstenaars gericht op vrede en coëxistentie getroffen door de boycotbeweging. Zie bijvoorbeeld dit filmpje op YouTube over de boycot campagne tegen Israel:
 
Zie verder ons artikel boycot Israel.
 
RP
--------------

The Jerusalem Post
Boycott threatens Pete Seeger's coexistence appearance

 
Seeger is slated to be featured guest of November 14 event sponsored by the Friends of the Arava Institute to raise support for desert institute.
 
Legendary 91-year-old American folk singer and civil rights pioneer Pete Seeger is still trying to "hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters," but when it comes to the Middle East conflict, anti-Israeli activists are preferring that he keep his hammer at home.

Seeger is slated to be the featured guest of With Earth and Each Other – A Virtual Rally for a Better Middle East, to be broadcast online on November 14. The event is sponsored by the Friends of the Arava Institute, a US-based non-profit organization with the primary goal of raising support and visibility for the Arava Institute for Environment Studies based at Kibbutz Ketura, about 40 kilometers north of Eilat.

Founded in 1996, the institute's mission is to prepare future Arab and Jewish leaders to cooperatively solve the region's environmental challenges.

Over 600 students, including Israelis, Palestinians, Jordanians, and others, have participated in the Arava Institute program.

According to the institute's director, David Lehrer, With Earth and Each Other (WEAEO) wasn't designed to be a political rally, but "to show the world that there is another side of the conflict in which people across borders are striving to work together for the betterment of all."

The hour-long show will be hosted by American stage and film actor Mandy Patinkin, who recently signed a letter of support for Israeli actors who announced they refused to perform in Ariel. It will feature performances by Seeger, and other performers including Jethro Tull front man Ian Anderson, who recently donated his proceeds from three Israeli performances to three organizations working toward Israeli- Arab coexistence.

In addition to highlighting various examples of cooperation between the people of the region under the auspices of the institute, the show, featuring both live and pre-recorded performances, will ask viewers around the world to join together at the event's conclusion to sing "Salaam (Od Yavo Shalom Aleinu)," the well-known song of peace in Hebrew and Arabic.

What could be a more positive, non-political message of coexistence than that, right? Not according to over 40 organizations, led by Adalah-NY: The New York Campaign for the Boycott of Israel, which published a letter on Sunday calling on Seeger to "join the growing list of artists who have respected the Palestinian boycott call," referring to cancellations this summer by the likes of Elvis Costello and the Pixies.

The letter cited recent events in the Beduin village of Al- Arakib, where illegal structures have been torn down four times this year by the Israel Police. The letter also focused on the participation of the Jewish National Fund as a partner in the online presentation.

"The JNF, a partner organization in 'With Earth and Each Other,' has been engaged in the 'Judaization' of Palestine for more than 100 years. After the 1948 expulsion of two thirds of the Palestinian people from their lands, the JNF planted fast-growing non-native trees on the ruins of Palestinian villages in a deliberate attempt to prevent refugees from returning to their land."

In a separate letter to Seeger,
Jeff Halper, chairman of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) wrote: "I hope that you will decide to join these artists of conscience and once again make a bold stand for justice.

The movement is gathering strength, the violators of civilized norms are fearful, and change is in the air."

Seeger, long sympathetic with Left-wing causes, has been donating some his royalties for the song "Turn, Turn, Turn" to the ICAHD for over ten years.

Halper noted that one of the JNF's most recent activities has been "the planting of a forest to cover a Beduin village [Al- Arakib] in the Negev from which the residents have been forcibly removed."

In response, the Friends of the Arava Institute issued a statement saying that the JNF is but one of 30 partner organizations involved in putting on the show. "The Jewish National Fund is not, as it has been described in some letters and articles, 'the leading partner' or 'the sponsor' of WEAEO," the statement read.

"It should be noted, however, that the Jewish National Fund, and its donors, have been strong financial supporters of the Arava Institute itself."

"Significant scholarship funding" that helps enable both Arab and Jewish students to attend the institute, "comes with the aid of the Jewish National Fund," continued the statement.

"As in its relationship with any other organization, there are, of course, times in which the Arava Institute and the Jewish National Fund disagree with regard to certain policies. However, the Arava Institute is proud of the many positive accomplishments benefiting the entire region it has achieved as a result of this partnership."

According to the Arava Institute's director Lehrer, those who are calling for Seeger to boycott the event are shooting themselves in the foot.

"Although I sympathize with some of the criticism that people have about Israeli policies regarding Palestinians and within Israel itself in terms of our Arab citizens, I don't believe the way to end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and the way to create a sustainable and peaceful Middle East in which everyone lives together with equal rights and opportunity is by staging a boycott," he told The Jerusalem Post on Monday.

"It's through dialoguing and that's what the Arava Institute is all about. That's what the program we're running is doing and it's what With Earth and Each Other is all about – bringing people together through dialogue. And you can't do that if you're staging a boycott."

Seeger has not yet responded to the appeals to cancel his participation in the event, but according to the Friends of the Arava Institute, it's all academic.

"No performer, including Pete Seeger, will be traveling to the Middle East for the purpose of contributing a performance segment to WEAEO," they said in a statement.

Whether Seeger – who has already recorded a spoken invitation to the event which is posted on the event's Web site ( http://www.with-earthandeachother.org/ ) – will turn his virtual performance into a virtual boycott is a virtual even bet.

 

Hamas video over 'bevrijding van Tel Aviv'

 
Onlangs nog schreef Anja Meulenbelt een lang artikel over de vredelievendheid van Hamas, dat Israel al lang vrede zou hebben aangeboden maar Israel houdt liever het sprookje in stand dat Hamas haar wil vernietigen. Deze film zal dus wel door de Mossad zijn gemaakt, want het vredelievende Hamas zou hier toch niet van durven dromen?
 
RP
----------------
 
Hamas presents: 'Liberation of TA'
(Video) Group operatives from Gaza, West Bank create video depicting 'liberation' of Israeli cities, Channel 2's news desk

Ali Waked Published: 09.13.10, 15:52

VIDEO - A new Hamas video clip has the Arab internet all a frenzy:

It depicts the "battle to free Palestine" and includes fire on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and changes to Channel 2's news anchors.

The video, which is particularly popular in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, was created by two Hamas operatives from Gaza and the West Bank.

It shows a graphic simulation of the burning down of the High Court of Justice and the Bank of Israel buildings in Jerusalem, and cars with Palestinian flags driving across Ayalon Highway.

The beginning of the video shows a Palestinian refugee saying "Inshallah, the Jihad will take back the homeland."

The next image is of Palestinian students telling their teacher they want to become part of the resistance; followed by an image of an armed Palestinian outlining the liberation operation.

After Israel is successfully attacked and "liberated," Palestinians are shown walking along the Tel Aviv promenade and on its streets.

At the pinnacle moment of the video, the opening credits to Channel 2's nightly news edition appear, but anchorwoman Yonit Levy's place is taken by a Palestinian anchorman, depicted getting ready for the news broadcast declaring the "liberation of Tel Aviv and Palestine."

According to Muhammad al-Amriti, one of the video's creators, the clip was make in response to "inciting Zionist videos and videos encouraging the bombing of the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

"We planned to do a cartoon, but we then decided to shoot an actual film. We hope it can be aired on the satellite stations that support the resistance," he said.

His partner Eieman Hijazi, said the two used their own funds to finance the film, and urged television stations supporting the resistance to fund more films of this kind, saying he and his partner could produce such videos every three months.

 
 

Enquete onder Palestijnen over vredesonderhandelingen weinig hoopgevend

 
Vaak wordt beweerd dat een meerderheid van de Palestijnen allang een tweestatenoplossing accepteert en bereid is de gewapende strijd op te geven, als Israel maar bereid zou zijn de Palestijnen een staat te gunnen en te stoppen met de bezetting. De resultaten van deze enquete stemmen niet vrolijk, om het mild uit te drukken. Een paar voorbeelden:

With regards to rebuilding confidence in the peace process please indicate which of the following options you consider to be 'Essential', 'Desirable', 'Acceptable', 'Tolerable' or 'Unacceptable'.

Resist occupation through violence to achieve a state
Essential 36.7 Desirable 18.7 Acceptable 16.8
Tolerable  14.0 Unacceptable 13.7

With regards to the final status of Palestine and Israel please indicate which of the following you consider to be Essential, Desirable, Acceptable, Tolerable or Unacceptable as part of a peace agreement.

Historic Palestine - from the Jordan River to the sea as a national homeland for Palestinians
Essential 78.2 Desirable 12.5 Acceptable 4.3
Tolerable 3.1 Unacceptable 2.0

With regards to refugees please indicate which of the following options you consider to be Essential, Desirable, Acceptable, Tolerable or Unacceptable as part of a peace agreement.

The number of refugees returning to Israel should be limited to family members and numbers agreed between Israel and Palestine
Essential 3.7 Desirable 7.8 Acceptable 11.9
Tolerable  16.9 Unacceptable 59.6
 
Right of return and compensation
Essential 87.5 Desirable 8.0 Acceptable 1.9
Tolerable 1.6 Unacceptable 1.1

 
With regards to Jerusalem please indicate which of the following options you consider to be Essential, Desirable, Acceptable, Tolerable or Unacceptable as part of a peace agreement.

All of Jerusalem (East and West) should remain in Palestine
Essential 84.1 Desirable 10.3 Acceptable 2.2
Tolerable 1.6 Unacceptable 1.7

Do you believe that Palestinians and Israelis will coexist if Palestinians gain their own independent state?
Yes 16.7 Maybe 37.7 No 42.3 Don't know 3.2

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

Results of an Opinion Poll
Publication Date: 28 August 2010
Field work: 8-14 August 2010
Sample Size: 3,001 Palestinians in the West Bank & Gaza
Margin of error: +/-1.5 %

Arab World for Research & Development
Ramallah - Gaza, Palestine
Tele-fax: 00970-2-2950957/8
E-mail:
awrad@awrad.org
Website: www.awrad.org
www.awrad.org/pdfs/English%20tables%20part%201%20peace%20August%202010.pdf

Section One: Progress and responsibility
 
With regards to responsibility for the lack of progress in the peace process please indicate what issues you consider to be Very Significant, Of Some Significance, Of Little Significance, Of No Significance, or I don't know.

The United States because of their lack of commitment to a Palestinian state
Very Significant 69.4 Of Some Significance 14.1
Of Little Significance  9.2 Of No Significance 5.0
I don't know 2.3

The Israeli people because they are not ready to make peace
Very Significant 69.3 Of Some Significance 16.2
Of Little Significance 6.7 Of No Significance 5.9
I don't know 1.9

The Palestinian people because they are divided by the political differences of Hamas and Fateh
Very Significant 68.4 Of Some Significance 14.7
Of Little Significance 5.7 Of No Significance 9.4
I don't know 1.8

Arab governments because they are divided on the future of Palestine
Very Significant 62.8 Of Some Significance 19.2
Of Little Significance  9.7 Of No Significance 6.2
I don't know 2.1

The United Nations because of failure to implement its resolutions
Very Significant 61.5 Of Some Significance 18.0
Of Little Significance  10.9 Of No Significance 6.9
I don't know 2.7

The Quartet because it is ineffective
Very Significant 58.6 Of Some Significance 19.1
Of Little Significance  11.0 Of No Significance  6.6
I don't know 4.8

The Israeli public because of their refusal to accept 1967 borders
Very Significant 57.4 Of Some Significance 21.0
Of Little Significance 10.9 Of No Significance  6.7
I don't know 4.0

The Palestinian government because they are too weak to compromise
Very Significant 51.4 Of Some Significance 20.9\
Of Little Significance 12.7 Of No Significance 11.2
I don't know 3.7

The Israeli government because they are too weak to compromise
Very Significant 22.2 Of Some Significance 13.3
Of Little Significance 16.3 Of No Significance 39.6
I don't know 8.6

Section Two: Peace progress and a final status agreement

With regards to the peace process and reaching a final status agreement, which issues do you consider to be Very Significant, Of Some Significance, Of Little Significance Of No Significance or I don't know?

Establishing an independent and sovereign Palestinian state

Very Significant 91.7 Of Some Significance  5.9
Of Little Significance 1.1 Of No Significance 0.9
I don't know 0.5

The status of Jerusalem
Very Significant 91.0 Of Some Significance  6.5
Of Little Significance 1.6 Of No Significance 0.5
I don't know 0.4

Security for Palestine
Very Significant 86.2 Of Some Significance 10.4
Of Little Significance 2.5 Of No Significance 0.4
I don't know 0.6

The rights of refugees
Very Significant 83.2 Of Some Significance 10.7
Of Little Significance 4.5 Of No Significance 0.9
I don't know 0.6

Settlements in the Occupied Territories
Very Significant 81.3 Of Some Significance 12.8
Of Little Significance 4.3 Of No Significance 0.9
I don't know 0.6

Agreeing to borders for Palestine
Very Significant 80.2 Of Some Significance 14.0
Of Little Significance 3.4 Of No Significance 1.7
I don't know 0.7

Rights to natural resources (water and air)
Very Significant 79.7 Of Some Significance 12.6
Of Little Significance 6.1 Of No Significance 1.0
I don't know 0.6

The management of holy sites
Very Significant 79.2 Of Some Significance 16.0
Of Little Significance 3.5 Of No Significance 0.5
I don't know 0.8

Peace between Israel and the Arab World
Very Significant 45.7 Of Some Significance 16.6
Of Little Significance 15.3 Of No Significance 18.7
I don't know 3.7

Section Three: Rebuilding confidence in the peace process

With regards to rebuilding confidence in the peace process please indicate which of the following options you consider to be 'Essential', 'Desirable', 'Acceptable', 'Tolerable' or 'Unacceptable'.

Israel should remove all check points
Essential 88.0 Desirable 9.1 Acceptable 1.8
Tolerable 0.6 Unacceptable 0.4

Israel should demolish the wall
Essential 87.7 Desirable 7.7 Acceptable 2.2
Tolerable 1.2 Unacceptable 1.2

Israel should freeze settlements in the West Bank
Essential 86.5 Desirable 9.1 Acceptable 2.1
Tolerable 0.8 Unacceptable 1.5

Israel and Egypt should lift the siege of Gaza
Essential 79.6 Desirable 11.6 Acceptable 4.1
Tolerable 3.0 Unacceptable 1.7

Israel should release Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Gilad Shalit
Essential 71.5 Desirable 14.4 Acceptable 6.5
Tolerable 3.5 Unacceptable 4.0

The Obama Administration should place a high priority on Middle East peace
Essential 65.0 Desirable 21.2 Acceptable 6.3
Tolerable 2.8 Unacceptable 4.7

EU and US should work with Egypt to end conflict between Hamas and Fateh
Essential 47.8 Desirable 28.7 Acceptable 10.7
Tolerable 5.2 Unacceptable 7.5

The Arab League should keep pushing for the Arab Peace Initiative
Essential 45.1 Desirable 25.5 Acceptable 15.0
Tolerable 7.6 Unacceptable 6.8

Resist occupation through violence to achieve a state
Essential 36.7 Desirable 18.7 Acceptable 16.8
Tolerable 14.0 Unacceptable 13.7

Achieve a state through negotiations
Essential 31.4 Desirable 24.3 Acceptable 17.2
Tolerable 12.5 Unacceptable 14.5

If there is no agreement, have an internationally supervised truce for 5 years
Essential 26.9 Desirable 21.2 Acceptable 19.0
Tolerable 15.3 Unacceptable 17.6

Resist occupation through non- violent civil disobedience to achieve a state
Essential 26.9 Desirable 22.2 Acceptable 17.8
Tolerable 11.1 Unacceptable 21.9

Armed groups should stop firing rockets from Gaza
Essential 25.9 Desirable 17.3 Acceptable 15.7
Tolerable 12.7 Unacceptable 28.4

Palestinians should continue a unilateral ceasefire to put pressure on Israel
Essential 19.3 Desirable 16.6 Acceptable 14.5
Tolerable 12.7 Unacceptable 36.9

Hamas should recognize Israel if Israel agrees to withdraw from the Occupied Territories
Essential 16.5 Desirable 13.8 Acceptable 16.2
Tolerable 17.0 Unacceptable 36.5

Israel should be allowed to build the wall on the 1967 boarder
Essential 9.5 Desirable 6.2 Acceptable 7.4
Tolerable 12.7 Unacceptable 64.2

Section Four: Final Status (The state)
 
With regards to the final status of Palestine and Israel please indicate which of the following you consider to be Essential, Desirable, Acceptable, Tolerable or Unacceptable as part of a peace agreement.

Historic Palestine - from the Jordan River to the sea as a national homeland for Palestinians
Essential 78.2 Desirable 12.5 Acceptable 4.3
Tolerable 3.1 Unacceptable 2.0

Two state solution - two states for two peoples: Israel and Palestine according to UN resolutions
Essential 17.7 Desirable 15.7 Acceptable 13.6
Tolerable 15.2 Unacceptable 37.7

One joint state - a state in which Israelis and Palestinians are equal citizens between the Jordan River and the sea.
Essential 9.6 Desirable 14.8 Acceptable 13.5
Tolerable 15.0 Unacceptable 47.1

One shared state - bi-national federal state in which Israelis and Palestinians share power
Essential 5.3 Desirable 9.3 Acceptable 12.6
Tolerable 16.5 Unacceptable 56.2

Confederation between West Bank and Jordan and between Gaza and Egypt
Essential 4.7 Desirable 8.2 Acceptable 9.8
Tolerable 13.5 Unacceptable 63.8

Which  one  of  the above-listed  scenarios  do  you  believe  is most likely to take place in the coming 10 years?
10.4% Historic Palestine - From the Jordan River to the sea as a national homeland for the Palestinians
02.4% One joint state - A state in which Israelis and Palestinians are equal citizens between the Jordan River and the sea
01.0% One shared state - Bi-national federal state in which Israelis and Palestinians share power
09.1% Two state solution - Two states for two peoples: Israel and Palestine according to UN resolutions
03.6% Confederation between West Bank and Jordan and between Gaza and Egypt
37.9% No change in the status quo will take place
26.9% The situation will only change for the worse
08.7% Don't know

Section five: Refugees

With regards to refugees please indicate which of the following options you consider to be Essential, Desirable, Acceptable, Tolerable or Unacceptable as part of a peace agreement.

Right of return and compensation
Essential 87.5 Desirable 8.0 Acceptable 1.9
Tolerable 1.6 Unacceptable 1.1

Refugees who do not wish to return to Israel should be offered compensation for their loss and a choice of resettlement in Palestine (West Bank/Gaza) or another Arab country
Essential 13.1 Desirable 18.4 Acceptable 22.0
Tolerable 17.9 Unacceptable 28.6

Right of return without compensation
Essential 18.9 Desirable 19.7 Acceptable 14.7
Tolerable 12.4 Unacceptable 34.2

Return to Palestine (WB/G) within agreed borders
Essential 11.4 Desirable 15.5 Acceptable 17.8
Tolerable 19.3 Unacceptable 36.1

The number of refugees returning to Israel should be limited to family members and numbers agreed between Israel and Palestine
Essential 3.7 Desirable 7.8 Acceptable 11.9
Tolerable 16.9 Unacceptable 59.6

The UN should close the refugee camps and resettle them with compensation outside of Israel
Essential 12.6 Desirable 9.9 Acceptable 10.8
Tolerable 15.6 Unacceptable 51.0

Under Israeli recognition of the suffering of the Palestinian refugees, compensation without right of return
Essential 4.8 Desirable 6.5 Acceptable 8.1
Tolerable 12.6 Unacceptable 68.0

Which one of the above-listed  scenarios do you  believe  is most likely to take place in the coming 10 years? %
12.1% Right of return and compensation
02.7% Right of return without compensation
03.2% Refugees who do not wish to return to Israel would be offered compensation for their loss and a choice of resettlement in Palestine (West Bank Gaza) or another Arab country
01.4% The number of refugees returning to Israel would be limited to family members and numbers agreed between Israel and Palestine
01.9% Return to Palestine (WB/G) within agreed borders
01.7% Under Israeli recognition of the suffering of the Palestinian refugees, compensation without right of return
03.2% The UN would close the refugee camps and resettle them with compensation outside of Israel
45.7% No change in the status of refugees will take place
21.9% The situation for refugees will only change for the worse
06.0% Don't know

Section Six: Security

With regards to the issue of security please indicate which of the following options you consider to be Essential, Desirable, Acceptable, Tolerable or Unacceptable as part of a peace agreement.

Palestine should have an army
Essential 81.7 Desirable 12.2 Acceptable 3.4
Tolerable 1.5 Unacceptable 1.1

Palestine should have a strong police force
Essential 81.0 Desirable 13.4 Acceptable 3.6
Tolerable 1.3 Unacceptable 0.7

Israel should be demilitarized, including the standing down of the military
Essential 41.0 Desirable 21.8 Acceptable 10.6
Tolerable 10.6 Unacceptable 16.0

Under the supervision of this force Palestinians will take responsibility for all security on and inside their borders
Essential 34.2 Desirable 20.9 Acceptable 17.1
Tolerable 11.7 Unacceptable 16.2

On signing a peace agreement a force of international, regional and Arab states should replace the IDF in the Occupied Territories for an agreed period
Essential 25.5 Desirable 20.6 Acceptable 17.5
Tolerable 13.0 Unacceptable 23.4

If no agreement is reached within two years this force will replace the IDF in the Occupied Territories without further delay
Essential 22.9 Desirable 21.6 Acceptable 19.0
Tolerable 15.1 Unacceptable 21.4

The international force will ensure security on the Jordanian border
Essential 22.7 Desirable 18.7 Acceptable 19.9
Tolerable 16.7 Unacceptable 22.0

Palestine should be demilitarized, including the disbanding of militias and the standing down of the military.
Essential 7.8 Desirable 5.5 Acceptable 4.0
Tolerable 7.6 Unacceptable 75.0

For an agreed period Israel will have access to the Jordanian border for reasons of security
Essential 6.2 Desirable 9.6 Acceptable 13.5
Tolerable 21.2 Unacceptable 49.5

For an agreed period Israel will have observation posts in the Palestinian state for reasons of security
Essential 5.4 Desirable 8.7 Acceptable 11.3
Tolerable 16.7 Unacceptable 57.9

Section Seven: Settlements
 
With Regards to the settlements please indicate which of the following options you consider to be Essential, Desirable, Acceptable, Tolerable or Unacceptable as part of a peace agreement.

All the settlers should leave the Occupied Territories and settlements closed
Essential 90.8 Desirable 6.3 Acceptable 1.4
Tolerable 0.8 Unacceptable 0.7

Dismantle most of the settlements, move settlers to large blocks and exchange land
Essential 9.6 Desirable 9.0 Acceptable 10.0
Tolerable 17.9 Unacceptable 53.6

Settlers can stay in Palestine (WB) if they take up Palestinian citizenship
Essential 8.1 Desirable 8.6 Acceptable 11.7
Tolerable 16.7 Unacceptable 54.9

Which one of the above-listed  scenarios do you  believe  is most likely to take place in the coming 10 years?
12.7% All the settlers should leave the Occupied Territories and settlements closed
01.8% Settlers can stay in Palestine (WB) if they take up Palestinian citizenship
06.1% Dismantle most of the settlements, move settlers to large blocks and exchange land
38.9% No change in the status of settlements will take place
31.9% The situation regarding settlements will only change for the worse
08.6% Don't know

Section Eight: Borders

With Regards to the borders please indicate which of the following options you consider to be Essential, Desirable, Acceptable, Tolerable or Unacceptable as part of a peace agreement.

Israel should withdraw to the 1967 boarder between Israel and Palestine
Essential 68.4 Desirable 11.7 Acceptable 6.7
Tolerable 4.5 Unacceptable 8.7

1967 border adjusted through agreement of equivalent exchange of land
Essential 15.9 Desirable 17.2 Acceptable 16.3
Tolerable 16.6 Unacceptable 34.0

Border established by the security wall
Essential 7.0 Desirable 6.0 Acceptable 6.7
Tolerable 12.1 Unacceptable 68.2

Which one of the above-listed  scenarios do you  believe  is most likely to take place in the coming 10 years?
15.0%  Israel should withdraw to the 1967 border between Israel and Palestine
04.7% 1967 border adjusted through agreement of equivalent exchange of land
03.3% Border established by the security wall
40.8% No change in the status of borders will take place
26.5% The situation on borders will only change for the worse
09.8% Don't know

Section Nine: Jerusalem

With regards to Jerusalem please indicate which of the following options you consider to be Essential, Desirable, Acceptable, Tolerable or Unacceptable as part of a peace agreement.

All of Jerusalem (East and West) should remain in Palestine
Essential 84.1 Desirable 10.3 Acceptable 2.2
Tolerable 1.6 Unacceptable 1.7

Jerusalem should be internationalized as a city of peace under the authority of a Multi-faith Municipal Covenant
Essential 12.9 Desirable 15.6 Acceptable 17.5
Tolerable 14.7 Unacceptable 39.3

Jerusalem should be divided into East and West along the pre-1967 border
Essential 10.4 Desirable 10.8 Acceptable 11.9
Tolerable 16.6 Unacceptable 50.3

Jerusalem should be internationalized as a city of peace under the authority of the UN
Essential 10.8 Desirable 11.9 Acceptable 11.9
Tolerable 14.6 Unacceptable 50.9

Divide the city according to Palestinian and Israeli current neighborhoods
Essential 6.3 Desirable 9.6 Acceptable 13.1
Tolerable 16.9  Unacceptable 54.1

Which one of the above-listed  scenarios do you  believe  is most likely to take place in the coming 10 years?
08.6% All of Jerusalem (East and West) should remain in Palestine
01.6% Jerusalem should be internationalized as a city of peace under the authority of the UN
01.8% Jerusalem should be internationalized as a city of peace under the authority of  a Multi-faith Municipal Covenant
02.6% Divide the city according to Palestinian and Israeli current neighborhoods
06.6% Jerusalem should be divided into East and West along the pre-1967 border
38.1% No change in the status of Jerusalem will take place
32.9% The situation of Jerusalem will only change for the worse
07.8% Don't know

Section Ten: Holy Sites

With regards to Holy sites please indicate which of the following options you consider to be Essential, Desirable, Acceptable, Tolerable or Unacceptable as part of a peace agreement.

East Jerusalem, including holy sites, under Palestinian sovereignty
Essential 82.0 Desirable 10.9 Acceptable 2.6
Tolerable 2.1 Unacceptable 2.3

Freedom of religion and free access for everyone to the holy sites. No side will have sovereignty on the holy sites. Israel will be 'guardian' of the Western Wall and the Palestinian State 'guardian' of the Islamic holy sites. The status quo of Christian holy sites will remain.
Essential 12.1 Desirable 11.9 Acceptable 14.7
Tolerable 16.5 Unacceptable 44.8

The Western Wall will be under Israeli sovereignty, Christian and Muslim holy sites, including the Temple Mount, will be under Palestinian sovereignty
Essential 9.5 Desirable 12.3 Acceptable 13.3
Tolerable 15.8 Unacceptable 49.0

Neutral body, e.g. the UN will be the guardian of the holy sites
Essential 9.3 Desirable 10.5 Acceptable 10.9
Tolerable 16.9 Unacceptable 52.4

Section Eleven: Implementation

With regards to the implementation of a peace agreement please indicate which of the following Options you consider to be Essential, Desirable, Acceptable, Tolerable or Unacceptable as part of a peace agreement.

All prisoners shall be released
Essential 90.6 Desirable 6.0 Acceptable 2.1
Tolerable 0.9 Unacceptable 0.3

Any peace agreement will be subject to a referendum by the people of Palestine
Essential 76.4 Desirable 13.4 Acceptable 5.7
Tolerable 2.5 Unacceptable 2.0

The peace agreement will be the end of conflict between both parties and enforced by both parties.
Essential 53.3 Desirable 20.9 Acceptable 11.9\
Tolerable 8.6 Unacceptable 5.3

An international body acceptable to both parties will be established to monitor and enforce the full implementation of the agreement
Essential 48.0 Desirable 22.8 Acceptable 14.7
Tolerable 9.1 Unacceptable 5.5

Section Twelve: the Mitchell Mission
 
How do you evaluate the proximity talks that are lead by the US Envoy George Mitchell?
Great Progress 1.4 Little Progress 12.3
No Progress 56.8 Regress 19.7 Don't Know 9.8

Do you think that the current proximity talks should continue or should Palestinians and Israelis engage in direct negotiations immediately?
20.8% Proximity talks should continue until Israel declares a freeze on settlements
31.0% Direct negotiations are the better option
37.7% I don't care for negotiations at this stage as they make no difference
10.5% Unsure/Don't know

If President Abbas decides to engage in direct negotiations with Israel on the final status issues, would you support him?
10.7% Yes, only if Israel commits to a freeze on settlements
09.3% Yes, only if the international community gives assurances that the process will lead to a Palestinian State within a timetable
44.8% Yes, under both of the above-mentioned conditions at the same time
07.7% Yes, without conditions.
21.6% No, I will not support these negotiations
05.8% Unsure/Don't know

What is the best mechanism to engage in a negotiation process with Israel?
34.3% Negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis with no intermediaries
06.3% Negotiations with an American mediation
31.3% An international conference under the supervision of the UN
28.2% None of the above

Which of the following documents do you prefer to be the frame of reference for the negotiations?
24.% UN resolutions
12.6% Road Map
31.9% The Arab Initiative
05.9% Other
24.9% Don't Know

In your opinion, which one of the following is the best means in terms of its capability to end the occupation and to establish a Palestinian state?
34.6% Negotiations until reaching an agreement between the two parties
25.9% Violent attacks against Israeli military and settlers
19.4% A non-violent popular uprising
06.5% Violent attacks against civilians in Israel through suicide bombers and any other means
06.2% Attacks against the Israeli military only
07.3% Other

In your opinion, do you think that the negotiations will ever lead to a Palestinian state with full sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza Strip?
Yes 18.2 Maybe 46.8 No 31.8 Don't know 3.2

Do you believe that Palestinians and Israelis will coexist if Palestinians gain their own independent state?
Yes 16.7 Maybe 37.7 No 42.3 Don't know 3.2

--------------------------------------------
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website:
www.imra.org.il
 

Palestijnse TV: 'zondige en vuile joden bidden bij de Klaagmuur'

 
Dit is de nieuwste Palestijnse bijdrage aan het slagen van de vredesonderhandelingen. Terwijl Abbas en Netanjahoe elkaar in Sharm al Sheikh ontmoeten, verspreidt de officiële PA TV leugens en haat over Israel en de Joden. Maar daar kijkt natuurlijk niemand meer van op.
 
RP
---------------

PMW Bulletin / Sept. 14, 2010

 
PA TV: Jews praying at Western Wall are "sin and filth"
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=3053

by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik

On the Jewish New Year, PA TV broadcast a documentary showing Jews praying at the Western Wall while the narrator called it "sin and filth."
The same program also described Jewish history as "false."

PA TV documentary shows visuals of Jews praying at the Western Wall in Jerusalem:

PA TV narrator: "They [Israelis] know for certain that our [Palestinian] roots are deeper than their false history. We, from the balcony of our home, look out over [Islamic] holiness and on sin and filth [Jews praying at the Western Wall]."
[PA TV (Fatah), Sept. 10, 2010]

Click to view PMW's reporting on the PA's continued denial of Jewish history in Jerusalem and PA's demonization of Jews and Israelis.


p:+972 2 625 4140     e: pmw@palwatch.org
f: +972 2 624 2803       w:
www.palwatch.org  
PMW | King George 59 | Jerusalem | Israel
 

dinsdag 14 september 2010

Karel De Gucht komt bij EU weg met anti-Joodse opmerkingen

 
In bepaalde kringen wordt openlijk getwijfeld aan het nut van het woord 'antisemitisme'. Het is zo beladen door de oorlog, aldus de redenering, dat het eigenlijk niet bruikbaar is in het dagelijkse leven. Ik kwam deze visie tegen bij Jaap Hamburger van EAJG, en de 'usual suspects' als het erom gaat alles wat Israel doet uit te vergroten en wat de Palestijnen doen te bagatelliseren. En nee, moslim-antisemitisme en antisemitisme überhaupt bestaan nauwelijks nog, en wat daar volgens sommigen voor doorgaat is een begrijpelijke reactie van boze moslims vanwege de onmenselijkheden van schurkenstaat Israel, of een uitvinding van Israel om immuun te zijn voor gerechtvaardigde kritiek op haar handelen.
 
De uitspraken van Karel de Gucht onlangs hadden weinig met Israel te maken en alles met Joden, maar van antisemtisme is natuurlijk geen sprake want dat is iets van de oorlog en enge nazi's die Joden in de ovens stopten, niet van een keurige man als De Gucht. Door de nazi's en de oorlog te isoleren als een korte en heftige afwijking van het doorgaans zo redelijke Europa kunnen we de schone schijn ophouden en het diepgewortelde antisemitisme blijven ontkennen.
 
Typisch dat onderstaand artikel afkomstig is uit een Amerikaanse krant.
 
RP
---------------
 
 
Source: Wall Street Journal (Europe Reverts to Type - The EU's response to anti-Semitism? "No comment."Bret Stephens)

If a top European mandarin mouths off about Jews and the rest of Europe's political class acts like it's no big deal, does that make them cowards, accomplices—or just politically astute? Probably all three.

Earlier this month, Karel De Gucht, the European Union's trade commissioner and a former foreign minister of Belgium, gave an interview to a Flemish radio station in which he offered the view that the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations were sure to founder on two accounts: first, because Jews are excessively influential in the U.S; second, because they are not the sorts to be reasoned with.

"Do not underestimate the Jewish lobby on Capitol Hill," Mr. De Gucht said, dispensing with the usual fine-grained, face-saving distinction about the difference between a "Jewish" and an "Israel" lobby. "This is the best organized lobby, you shouldn't underestimate the grip it has on American politics—no matter whether it's Republicans or Democrats."

Nor was that all the commissioner had to say on the subject. "There is indeed a belief—it's difficult to describe it otherwise—among most Jews that they are right," he said. "And it's not so much whether these are religious Jews or not. Lay Jews also share the same belief that they are right. So it is not easy to have, even with moderate Jews, a rational discussion about what is actually happening in the Middle East."

Here, then, was a case not of "criticism of Israel" or "anti-Zionism," the usual sheets under which this sort of mentality hides. Mr. De Gucht's target was Jews, the objects of his opprobrium their malign political influence and crippled mental reflexes. If this isn't anti-Semitism, the term has no meaning.

But perhaps it no longer does, at least in Europe. "I regret that the comments that I made have been interpreted in a sense I did not intend," Mr. De Gucht said, by way of non-apology. "I did not mean in any possible way to cause offense or stigmatize the Jewish community. I want to make clear that anti-Semitism has no place in today's world."

The comment admits of two interpretations: (1) that it is insincere, and therefore an act of political expediency; (2) that it is sincere, and Mr. De Gucht thinks that casually bad-mouthing Jews doesn't quite reach the threshold of "anti-Semitism"—defined, as the saying has it, as hating Jews more than is strictly necessary.

I suspect the latter interpretation, which has an old European pedigree, is closer to the mark. But whatever Mr. De Gucht's motives, the more interesting phenomenon has been the European non-reaction. "No comment," says a spokesman for German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle. "Our position on anti-Semitism is very clear but we have no comments on other people's statements," says a spokesman for Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini. "High Representative [Catherine] Ashton is confident [De Gucht] didn't mean any offense, and that he apologized," says a spokeswoman for the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. "He made personal comments for which he expressed his personal regret and there is no further comment to make," says a spokesman for the European Commission.

Now imagine that Mr. De Gucht had made analogous comments about Muslims: What would have been the reaction then? Actually, it's not hard to guess. For weeks, Germany has been in an uproar over a book by Bundesbank member Thilo Sarrazin that has unflattering things to say about Muslim immigrants and what they portend for Germany's future. I have no brief for Mr. Sarrazin (who also made a somewhat cryptic comment about Jews sharing "a particular gene"). But why has Mr. Sarrazin been forced to quit the Central Bank and is now being drummed out of his Social Democratic Party at the same time that Mr. De Gucht has been given a pass?

One answer is that there are about 1.5 million Jews in the EU today, as against some 16 million Muslims, and politicians are responsive to numbers. Fair enough. The other answer is that Europe—and not just Muslim Europe—is pervasively anti-Semitic.

If that sounds over-the-top, consider that last year the Anti-Defamation League conducted a survey of European attitudes toward Jews in seven different countries. Do Jews have "too much power in the business world"? In France, 33% said this was "probably true"; in Spain it was 56%. Were Jews to some degree responsible for the global economic crisis? In Germany, 30% thought so; in Austria, 43% did. A separate 2008 Pew Survey also"very" or "somewhat" unfavorable opinion of Jews.

As part of his defense, Mr. De Gucht insisted he was only offering his "personal point of view," and not those of the European Commission as a whole. He shouldn't be so modest. He has his constituency. It's why he remains in office. It's why Europe's future is beginning to look increasingly like Europe's past.
 
 

Hamas woordvoerder Ahmad Bahr: "2,5 milioen maagden staan klaar voor martelaren"

 
Mooie bloemrijke woorden van een Hamas lid van het Palestijnse parlement. Dit is wat Hamas haar 'onderdanen' vertelt, waarmee de kinderen van Gaza opgroeien. Dit is de organisatie die feministe Anja Meulenbelt onlangs weer gepassioneerd verdedigde op haar blog en de linkse website Joop.
 
RP
--------------

September 05, 2010
Clip No. 2605

Hamas PLC Speaker Ahmad Bahr: 2.5 Million Virgins Await the Prophets, the Righteous, and the Martyrs in a Single Palace in the Garden of Eden

Following are excerpts from a speech delivered by Hamas PLC Speaker Ahmad Bahr, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on September 5, 2010.

Ahmad Bahr: It is said that 'Omar [Ibn Al-Khattab] wished to become a martyr. It is said that one day, 'Omar addressed the people: "In the Garden of Eden, there is a palace – hear me well, brothers – with 500 gates. At every gate, there are 5,000 black-eyed virgins." Brothers, 500 multiplied by 5,000 is 2.5 million.

[...]

He said that only prophets may enter this palace. He looked at the tomb of the Prophet Muhammad, and said: "Blessings, oh Messenger of Allah. Only the prophets and the righteous may enter the palace." Then he turned to the tomb of Abu Bakr, and said: "Blessings on your martyrdom for the sake of Allah." Then 'Omar said: "Martyrs [enter the palace] too." Then 'Omar said, as if to himself: "Blessed be your martyrdom, oh 'Omar."

[...]

Ibn Hajar explicated a hadith, saying: When a man is having sex with his wife, he should be praying for a son who would wage Jihad for the sake of Allah. If this is the culture of the nation today, who will be able to stop it? Brothers, on the Night of Al-Qadr, bestowed upon us by Allah, I say to you: As long as we continue on this path, nobody on Earth will be able to confront the resistance, or to confront the mujahideen, those who worship Allah and seek martyrdom.

I say to you, loud and clear: the negotiations, conducted first in the US, then in Sharm Al-Sheikh, and wherever, are aimed at uprooting Islam and the resistance here in Palestine, in Gaza.

[...]

 

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

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, non-profit organization providing translations of the Middle East media and original analysis and research on developments in the region. Copies of articles and documents cited, as well as background information, are available on request.
MEMRI holds copyrights on all translations. Materials may only be used with proper attribution.

The Middle East Media Research Institute
P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837
Phone: [202] 955-9070 Fax: [202] 955-9077 E-Mail:
memri@memri.org
Search previous MEMRI publications at our website: www.memri.org
 
 

maandag 13 september 2010

Antisemitisme en Holocaust ontkenning door Syrische schrijver op Iraanse TV


Een "fris en duidelijk geluid" uit Syrië en Iran. Helaas zijn zulke uitspraken niet interessant voor de Westerse media, in tegenstelling tot de enkele keer dat een Israelische rabbijn uit de bocht vliegt en de Palestijnen zijn vijanden noemt en die dood wenst, dan is dat voor de NRC Handelsblad (voor wie de *kuch* nuance zoekt) voorpaginanieuws.
 
RP
-------------
 
MEMRI: Special Dispatch | 3219 | September 8, 2010
Syria/Iran/Lantos Archives on Anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial
http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/2593.htm
Syrian Author Muhammad Nimr Al-Madani on Iranian TV: In Many Countries, the Jews Kill People and Mix Their Blood with the Matza of Zion; The Old Testament Describes How to Build a Crematorium

 
Following are excerpts from a TV debate on Holocaust denial, which aired on Al-Alam TV (Iran) on August 8, 2010.

To view this clip on MEMRI TV, visit
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2593.htm.


Syrian author Muhammad Nimr Al-Madani: "I have read everything that has been written about the Holocaust, both by those who deny it and those who claim it occurred. First, those who claim that the Holocaust took place do not have any proof."

TV host: "Those who claim that it took place?"

Muhammad Nimr Al-Madani: "Yes."

TV host: "On what do they base their claims?"

Muhammad Nimr Al-Madani: "On nothing but a lie. Those who deny [sic] the annihilation have provided weak evidence. To be honest, in the West, they do not dare to speak freely..."

TV host: "Or to conduct objective research."

Muhammad Nimr Al-Madani: "Right. They don't enjoy the same freedom as us." [...]

Syrian researcher and publisher Muhammad Shaykjani: "First of all, there is a Koranic verse that says: 'Thus, the killing of their children was presented favorably to many polytheists.'

"Those who kill children in order to use their blood to get close to the god of sacrifice have turned to killing the children of the Christians in London and Paris, in Switzerland and Austria. They were expelled from Britain when murdered children were found on one of their holidays. In Syria, they murdered a Christian priest, and the murderers were executed. In many countries, on the Matza of Zion holiday, they would kill people, take the blood of the victims, and mix it with the Matza of Zion. [...]

"They believe that God died in this annihilation, so that the Jews could live in Palestine, and their god, Yahweh, would live with them." [...]

Muhammad Nimr Al-Madani: "The Jews mixed philosophy, religion, and politics. Throughout history, they have been continuously developing their religion in accordance with the circumstances, until they reached Zionism. Judaism has come to mean Zionism, and in recent times, Judaism has come to mean 'Holocaustism.' [...]

"According to the Torah, the Lord enjoined them to conduct a seven-day sacrificial burning. The 'burning' is a sacred ritual of worship. I consider this to be proof of the falsity of the Holocaust, and biblical evidence that they have drawn the lie of the Holocaust from the Torah. Their reliance upon the Torah proves that the Holocaust is a lie, and that it never happened. It also shows that the Holocaust doctrine is deeply engrained in their minds and in their rituals."

TV host: "On page 64 of your book, for example, you write that the Old Testament describes with great accuracy how to build a crematorium."

Muhammad Nimr Al-Madani: "Yes. There is a text describing how to build the temple for the crematorium - its pillars, its copper ornamentation, and so on."

TV host: "It describes the crematorium in detail."

Muhammad Nimr Al-Madani: "Yes. For example, its size is approximately 2 meters. Bear in mind that the incinerators in the German Nazi hospitals, in which they burned the bodies of the sick, were 2 meters, or 190 centimeters. This is similar to the incinerators which they consider to be crematoria."

TV host: "On the inner cover of the book, we read a quote by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Why did you decide to print a quote of Ahmadinejad? This is..."

Muhammad Nimr Al-Madani: "Can we present it to the camera... I was very happy when the Iranian president denied the Holocaust. Since I am convinced of the need to fight this lie, I was filled with admiration at the words of the Iranian president."

TV host: "He said: 'Israel should be wiped out of existence.'"

Muhammad Nimr Al-Madani: "Yes, that's right. First of all, the Iranian president is the first leader in the world to adopt Holocaust denial. This is a great event. Secondly, the state of Israel must be wiped out of existence, as Imam Khomeini said before." [...]

===================
For assistance, please contact MEMRI at
memri@memri.org.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle East. Copies of articles and documents cited, as well as background information, are available on request.

MEMRI holds copyrights on all translations. Materials may only be used with proper attribution.

MEMRI
P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837
Phone: (202) 955-9070
Fax: (202) 955-9077
www.memri.org
 

Verhaal van de Arabische en Israel lobby in de VS

 
Na het veelgenoemde boek "De Israël lobby" van Mearsheimer en Walt is er nu een tegenhanger over de Arabische lobby. Een lobby die veel meer dan AIPAC in het duister handelt en waar de geldbedragen vele malen hoger zijn. Een lobby die de belangen verdedigt van landen als Saudi-Arabië met hun mensenrechtenschendingen, corruptie en discriminatie van vrouwen en andere religies. Landen ook die fundamentalisch-islamitische ideeën helpen verspreiden in de wereld.
 
The last-named activity ought to have turned the spotlight on Saudi Arabian double-dealing when fifteen of the nineteen suicide bombers in the 9/11 attack on American soil turned out to be Saudi nationals. Instead, the opposite occurred, as the royal family seized the opportunity to extend Arab influence in the world of ideas by pouring tens of millions of dollars into Islamic programs in American universities and other educational initiatives. The staggering sums are listed by Bard, along with descriptions of what these sums are buying in programming, from college courses through K-12 education. The influence is palpable not only in what gets taught but in what has been excluded: namely, courses on radical Islam, Arab anti-Semitism, Arab anti-Americanism, or anything else that might explain the real and present danger. What Jewish lobbying works to clarify and uncover, Arab influence has been successfully deployed to obscure.
 
RP
-----------

By Ruth R. Wisse

 

The problem of the Arab-Israel conflict begins with the term itself, which misrepresents the unilateral Arab war against Israel as a bilateral dispute. Unilateral aggression is not unheard of—when did Poland ever aggress against Germany or Russia?—but nothing in United Nations history compares in intensity or fixity with Arab belligerence toward Israel, a UN member state.

The Arab war has less to do with the scant physical space occupied by the Jewish state than with the opportunity it offers Arab leaders to consolidate their power and prestige by organizing against an external target, especially one trailing so long and encrusted a history of religious and ethnic vilification. This same politics of blame has been no less useful to Westerners like, most recently, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer in their 2006 indictment of America's "Israel Lobby." Had these two respected academics set out to study dispassionately the role of American special-interest groups in the making of Middle East policy, they might have unearthed a fascinating contrast in the disparate way that Arabs and Jews operate. Instead, by single-mindedly fingering the Jews, they neatly drew attention away from the larger story of Arab influence-peddlers.  

Now at last comes the information missing from Walt and Mearsheimer's screed. In Mitchell Bard's The Arab Lobby, we see how, in contrast to the altogether transparent workings of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a lobby supported by tens of thousands of American citizens across political lines, the Arab lobby truly does merit being called, in Bard's subtitle, an "invisible alliance that undermines America's interests in the Middle East."

Mitchell Bard was the logical person to supply the untold story. Trained in political science, public policy, and economics, he has made a specialty of separating Middle Eastern myths from facts, and his writing, whether on academic subjects or for popular audiences, is marked by careful research and thorough documentation. The details speak for themselves.

The present book, divided into fifteen chapters, begins with the "seeds" of the Arab lobby that were sown by King Saud of Saudi Arabia in the World War II era and that still bear fruit today. The basic message to America remains remarkably consistent: We have the oil. Maintain us in power and we will guarantee your deliveries. We will also purchase American arms—to the tune, Bard writes, of $100 billion over 50 years—to keep ourselves in power and thus maintain the security of your supply.

Bard does not shrink from the term "blackmail" to describe the process whereby the Saudis have periodically threatened to close the spigot whenever Washington appears to oppose their interests and fixed habits, which happen to include the denial of human rights at home, militant opposition to Israel abroad, the global spread of extremist Islam, and support of international terror.

The last-named activity ought to have turned the spotlight on Saudi Arabian double-dealing when fifteen of the nineteen suicide bombers in the 9/11 attack on American soil turned out to be Saudi nationals. Instead, the opposite occurred, as the royal family seized the opportunity to extend Arab influence in the world of ideas by pouring tens of millions of dollars into Islamic programs in American universities and other educational initiatives. The staggering sums are listed by Bard, along with descriptions of what these sums are buying in programming, from college courses through K-12 education. The influence is palpable not only in what gets taught but in what has been excluded: namely, courses on radical Islam, Arab anti-Semitism, Arab anti-Americanism, or anything else that might explain the real and present danger. What Jewish lobbying works to clarify and uncover, Arab influence has been successfully deployed to obscure.

The research compiled by Walt and Mearsheimer for The Israel Lobby, shoddy as much of it was, was taken from publicly available sources. Arab lobbyists and their clients conduct their most serious business in secret. The U.S. State Department, where Arabists are most influential, does not declassify its cables for 25 years, and even then, Bard writes, "we do not know how much of [Arab lobbying] activity is kept secret for national-security reasons, concealed to avoid embarrassment, [or] destroyed purposely or inadvertently."

The Arab Lobby is not an elegant book, and would have benefited from editorial polishing. But it rests on a solid background of painstaking research. Some of its repetitive quality, moreover, is attributable to the unchanging nature of Arab politics. American Jews could do America—and ultimately the Arabs—no greater service than to focus on setting the record straight, and to do so by taking a page from Bard and rejecting their customary defensiveness. They are not the defendants in this case; they are rightly the plaintiffs. 

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

Ruth R. Wisse is professor of Yiddish and comparative literature at Harvard. Her books include Jews and Power (Schocken)The Modern Jewish Canon (Free Press), and a forthcoming edition of The Glatstein Chronicles (Yale). 

 

The Arab Lobby - Book Review

 
Verwacht geen recensies van dit boek in Nederlandse kranten; dat is immers voorbehouden aan boeken die Israel en haar sympathisanten in een negatief daglicht stellen. Hoe goed dit boek is weet ik niet, maar het is nuttig dat ook die andere lobby eens is onderzocht en iemand daar eens is gaan speuren. Want terwijl de Israël-lobby volop in de publiciteit staat, weet de Arabische lobby het spotlicht bijzonder goed te vermijden. En dat is vaak geen gunstig teken.
 
RP
-------------

The Arab Lobby

A new book explores the 'petrodiplomatic complex' and Saudi influence on U.S. foreign policy

By Lee Smith | Sep 1, 2010 7:01 AM

http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/44096/the-arab-lobby/

One of the characteristic laments of the Arab intelligentsia in both Washington and the Middle East concerns the inability of Arab nations to make their cases to the U.S. public. If only the Arabs weren't so divided, the refrain goes; if only they better explained themselves and the plight of the Palestinians; if only the Arabs were as clever as the Jews; if only there was an Arab lobby as powerful as the Israel lobby.

But there is an Arab lobby in the United States—one as old as, if not older than, the Israel lobby, and it has helped to shape U.S. foreign policy and economic life since the end of World War II. Mitchell Bard's The Arab Lobby: The Invisible Alliance That Undermines America's Interests in the Middle East describes how this Arab lobby—from U.S. foreign service officers, oil companies, Christian anti-Zionists, and Ivy League universities to Gulf Arab states, Arab-American activists and Islamist ideologues—exercises its influence in U.S. politics. The book is already being dismissed by critics as a slapdash attempt by a former AIPAC employee to answer Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's 2007 book, The Israel Lobby. But those who actually read the new book will find a serious and timely look at a powerful and remarkably under-studied influence on U.S. foreign policy.

"Unlike Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, I don't think it's illegitimate to lobby for one's interests," Bard told me on the phone last week. The executive director of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, Bard wrote his dissertation at UCLA on the limits to domestic influence on U.S. Middle East Policy. "I've been writing for more than 20 years about this issue," he said. "The point of my book is to inform the American public that an Arab lobby exists despite the claims of others that it does not and to explain what its interests are."

In describing AIPAC's Arab cousin, Bard draws some useful comparisons between the two lobbies, which are not as similar as one might imagine from his book's title. AIPAC is a grassroots organization funded by U.S. citizens that represents the broad sentiment of Christians and Jews who are interested in one issue—protecting and promoting the U.S.-Israel relationship. The Arab lobby, by comparison, has little organic U.S. backing and divides its efforts between two causes—oil and Palestine. The former is managed in Washington by what Bard calls the "petrodiplomatic complex" of former U.S. diplomats and intelligence officers, politicians, and defense executives. Funded by oil companies, the weapons industry, and Arab energy producers, mainly Saudi Arabia, it enjoys virtually unlimited financial resources. For instance, AIPAC's annual operating budget is $60 million a year—pocket change to a Saudi prince, like Alwaleed Bin Talal, who in 2005 gave $20 million apiece to Georgetown and Harvard.

The Palestinian issue is paramount to the Arab-American sector of the Arab lobby. However, just as the Palestinians are divided against themselves—between Hamas and Fatah, among contending Fatah factions, as well as among competing clans—it is not the Palestinian cause that unites the Arabs or Arab-Americans but anti-Israel sentiment. The same goes for many of the Arab lobby's domestic anti-Zionist partners, some of whom are motivated by religious conviction, especially the Presbyterians, and others by political ideology, but all of whom can agree on disliking first the idea and then the reality of a Jewish state.

The Arab lobby's Palestine agenda, then, tends to be negative and, as Bard writes, "aimed at undermining the US-Israel relationship," only rarely promoting a positive vision of a Palestinian state as a regional beacon of social justice or economic development, or defending the rights of Palestinian journalists, Christians, or other endangered social groups against the threats of the Palestinian political leadership. This part of the Arab lobby, writes Bard, "is small and mostly impotent."

The real power is in the hands of the Arab lobby's oil sector, the role of which is to keep the Arab oil producers happy by ensuring that Americans stay addicted to oil, that the defense industry keeps its production lines open, and that the image of Arab states stays polished, even for state sponsors of terror, like Saudi Arabia, and states whose rule is founded on flagrant social inequalities, the torture of dissidents and unbelievers, and other practices that most Americans rightly find abhorrent.

Surely the most depressing aspect of Bard's book is his depiction of the craven subservience of so many U.S. diplomats and officials to the Saudi royal family. "Even when the Saudis had no money, and they only started to pump oil," Bard told me, "a fear permeated the State Department that if we didn't give in to them, we would lose our interest there. And the Saudis were clever about exploiting our fear. First they said they'd go with the British instead of us, then they threatened that they'd go with the Soviet Union, even as they portrayed themselves as anti-Communist and said they needed U.S. weapons to defend themselves against Moscow."

Bard says that the Saudis are using the Iran threat now in similar ways. "The U.S. knows that in the end we have to defend the royal family," he said. "The Saudis just want the latest toys and act like petulant children until they get them. Then the U.S. tells the Israelis not to worry when they sell the Saudis weapons because they can't use them, but we go to Congress and say Riyadh needs these arms for their defense."

With all the demands for U.S. presidents to pressure Israel, it's worth noting that U.S. officials have rarely done anything but accommodate the Saudis. The one striking exception, as Bard notes, was John F. Kennedy's demand that Saudi Arabia abolish slavery. Typically, U.S.-Saudi relations have been conducted in the dark, a trend that started in July 1945, when President Harry Truman approved construction of the Dhahran air base using existing War Department funds to evade congressional oversight. This became a precedent for keeping most of the U.S.-Saudi relationship secret, or at least beyond public scrutiny. For years, the U.S. government acceded to the wishes of the Saudis and other Gulf states to conceal information about Arab investments in the United States, and even U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia were classified between 1950 and 1972.

Today the unspoken issue is Saudi support for terror. Were U.S. officials to complain about how the kingdom funds jihad against the United States and its allies, "there's a fear," says Bard, "that the Saudis may punish us by withdrawing some of their billions of dollars in investments, cut U.S. companies out of deals to explore for gas or oil, or take other measures to damage our interests."

Nor are the Saudis shy about promising to unleash jihad against those who cross their path, as when they threatened the British government when it was investigating the unsavory details of a Saudi arms purchase from a British weapons maker.

Given the nature of the Saudi regime, it is little wonder that the oil lobby prefers to work in the shadows. As one publicist explained in laying out his PR strategy for Riyadh: "Saudi Arabia has a need to influence the few that influence the many, rather than the need to influence the many to whom the few must respond."

"This is a fairly smart lobbying tactic," Bard told me. "It is very difficult to take a democratic approach, when most people don't take your position."

The story of the Arab lobby is also a story about Washington, more specifically an influential segment of the U.S. political elite that has contempt for the rubes who don't understand that it is in the U.S. national interest to lean on the Zionists in order to make the Middle East's Muslim Arab majority happy.

Bard believes that the Arabs and their Washington handlers were spitting in the wind of a post-World War II history that had turned in favor of the Jews. The Arabs, Bard writes, were "convinced that the United States supported the Zionists because of their propaganda. … Consequently, [the Arabs] never understood the depth of Americans' feeling for the justness of the Zionist cause."

Perhaps that is true, but it's worth remembering that at the same time the Zionists succeeded in lobbying the Truman Administration to support a Jewish state, there was still widespread anti-Semitism throughout America, even as the horrors of the Final Solution were becoming known to the general public. It is comforting to believe that the 63 percent of Americans, according to a recent Gallup poll, who side with Israel rather than the Palestinians are now and will always be stalwart friends of the Jews. But in the end all we know for certain about Americans is that they can smell what stinks. The Saudi lobby pays Washington power-brokers to talk over the heads of ordinary Americans because the latter have enough horse sense to know that a regime that withholds the rights of women as well as those of its Shia minority, outlaws the practice of Christianity and Judaism, and promotes anti-American causes is not in any meaningful sense of the term a U.S. ally.

As Bard's book documents, the Saudis' well-paid American agents have been making the same arguments for 60 years. The reason their message is not getting through is not that Americans are stupid and susceptible to Zionist propaganda or that the Jews who "control" Congress and the media are blocking access to the truth. The majority of Americans haven't yet joined in the chorus led by Walt, Mearsheimer, and their cohort because Americans simply do not like to be threatened by extortionists who warn that if you don't do what we say we will turn off your lights and shut down your car engines, and if you don't change your position on Israel, we will kill you.

Netanjahoe hint op gedeeltelijke voortzetting bouwstop nederzettingen

 
Israel wil erkenning als Joodse staat en de Palestijnen willen voortzetting van de bouwstop. Je zou zeggen dat een uitruil dan een optie is. Dat zou werkelijk vooruitgang betekenen.
 
The prime minister stated that "we say that the solution is two states for two peoples, meaning two national states, a Jewish national state and a Palestinian national state.  To my regret, I have yet to hear from the Palestinians the phrase 'two states for two peoples'.  I hear them saying 'two states' but I do not hear them recognizing two states for two peoples."
 
Sterker nog, in de media en in hun gedrag laten ze duidelijk merken helemaal geen Joodse rechten in Israel te erkennen, en wordt het hele land 'bezet Palestina' genoemd dat bevrijd moet worden. Dat geldt niet alleen voor Hamas, maar ook voor media onder PA controle (zie bijvoorbeeld: Op Palestijnse TV zijn Israelische steden "bezette Palestijnse steden".
 
De Palestijnse delegatie heeft de eis tot erkenning van Israel als Joodse staat inmiddels echter al van de hand gewezen, zoals men dat tot nu steeds heeft gedaan, en uitgesloten dat dit verder besproken zal worden tijdens de onderhandelingen. Misschien moet Israel zeggen dat het pas over de nederzettingen wil praten als ook deze erkenning opnieuw op de agenda komt.
De verklaring die de PA geeft voor de afwijzing van deze Israelische eis is overigens zeer verhelderend:

He said the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state would harm Arab Palestinians inside Israel and negate the right of return of Palestinian refugees.

Het is dit 'recht op terugkeer' van de vluchtelingen dat inderdaad een einde zou maken aan het zelfbeschikkingsrecht van de Joden en daarmee indruist tegen de tweestatenoplossing. En zolang dat is wat de Palestijnen, ook de 'gematigde' PA van Abbas, willen, lijkt vrede me onmogelijk.

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

The Jerusalem Post
Netanyahu signals partial building freeze will continue
By JPOST.COM STAFF
09/12/2010 14:41
http://www.jpost.com/VideoArticles/Article.aspx?id=187831


PM: "Its all or nothing, but there are also intermediate options to consider"; Yishai: "We need to face the truth and not bury our heads in the sand."

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu finally referred to the West Bank building freeze on Sunday after pressure from ministers during a weekly cabinet meeting on the matter.

Netanyahu signaled that a partial freeze will continue to be enforced even though in the past he promised that building in the West Bank will continue as normal once the freeze ends.

"Its all or nothing, but there are also intermediate options to consider," Netanyahu said during a Likud ministerial meeting.

"I don't know if there will be a comprehensive freeze," he said. "But I also don't know if it is necessary to construct all of the 20,000 housing units waiting to be built."

The prime minister did not discuss the settlement freeze at the beginning of the weekly cabinet meeting, much to the surprise of many ministers.

Contrary to Netanyahu's earlier silence on the issue, a number of ministers gave their opinion on the issue of the West Bank building moratorium, which is set to expire at the end of September.

Social Affairs Minister Isaac Herzog referred to the settlement freeze and said that the talks scheduled for Sharm e-Sheikh "are an important step.... Brave steps need to be taken during the negotiations, even if that means a continuation of the settlement freeze."

In contrast, Interior Minister Eli Yishai claimed that "we need to face the truth and not hide our heads in the sand. I am very skeptical. I do not believe that the Palestinians want political negotiations."

Netanyahu: Palestinians must recognize Israel as Jewish state

Netanyahu said that a peace agreement is based, first of all, on the recognition of Israel as the national state of the Jewish People.

"The conflict between us and the Palestinians, as opposed to other conflicts that were resolved by peace agreements, is over the same piece of ground," Netanyahu continued.

The prime minister stated that "we say that the solution is two states for two peoples, meaning two national states, a Jewish national state and a Palestinian national state.  To my regret, I have yet to hear from the Palestinians the phrase 'two states for two peoples'.  I hear them saying 'two states' but I do not hear them recognizing two states for two peoples."

Netanyahu referred to the scheduled meeting in Sharm a-Sheikh on Tuesday and said "I believe that if the Palestinian leadership adheres to continuous negotiations, despite the obstacles that are coming up on every side, and if it is serious and determined in its intention to advance towards peace, just as we are serious, then it will be possible to,within a year, reach a framework that will be the basis for a peace settlement.