Netanyahu en Abbas moeten flexibel zijn als Begin en Sadat

 

Ronny Naftaniel is voorzichtig optimistisch over de huidige vredesbesprekingen tussen Netanjahoe en Abbas, en maakt een vergelijking met die tussen Begin en Sadat eind jaren '70, die tot een duurzame vrede tussen Israel en Egypte leidden.

Met het stug dooronderhandelen ben ik het eens, maar zijn vergelijking geeft ook ongewild een probleem bloot. Sadat maakte geen breekpunt van de nederzettingenbouw, en zie wat gebeurde: nadat de vrede getekend was, ging de regering Begin in de eerste versnelling door met het bouwen van nederzettingen, ondanks de beloofde autonomie voor de Palestijnen. Ook tijdens Oslo was het alleen onder Rabin dat een bouwstop werd ingesteld; Peres en Netanjahoe, en voor zover ik meen te weten ook Barak, lieten de bouw en uitbreiding van nederzettingen weer doorgaan. Dat schept terecht argwaan bij de tegenpartij: als Israel serieus is over het bereiken van een vredesakkoord, waarom dan nog doorbouwen op plekken die het straks moet afstaan?

Dat neemt niet weg dat de Palestijnen ook weinig doen om hun verlangen naar een vredesakkoord geloofwaardig te maken: de opruiing tegen Israel gaat gewoon door, en hoewel men een eigen staat binnen de wapenstilstandsgrenzen van 1967 zegt te willen accepteren, weigert men het principe van 'twee staten voor twee volken' te omarmen.

 

Wouter

_____________

 

wo 22-09-2010

http://www.cidi.nl/Nieuwsberichten/Netanyahu-en-Abbas-moeten-flexibel-zijn-als-Begin-en-Sadat.html

De datum 26 september, het eind van de bouwstop in Joodse nederzettingen, hangt dreigend boven de vredesbesprekingen. Maar ook Begin en Sadat waren 32 jaar geleden verdeeld over de nederzettingen: met hetzelfde geduld en flexibiliteit kunnen ook Netanyahu en Abbas eruit komen, betoogt Ronny Naftaniel. Netanyahu lijkt al voorzichtig naar een compromis te manoeuvreren: hij is 'niet tegen' een tijdelijke verlenging.

Netanyahu en Abbas moeten geduld en flexibiliteit tonen

Op 26 september staat het onlangs hervatte vredesproces tussen Israel en de Palestijnse Autoriteit voor zijn eerste grote krachtproef. De door Israel ingestelde tijdelijke bouwstop in de Joodse nederzettingen loopt dan af en premier Netanyahu heeft laten weten niet voor verlenging te voelen. In dit geval dreigt president Abbas de prille vredesbesprekingen te staken. Om dit dilemma, zonder heilloze drukmiddelen, te doorbreken zouden Abbas en Netanyahu even de klok 32 jaar moeten terugzetten. Toen sloten president Sadat van Egypte en premier Begin de Camp David Accoorden. De onderhandelingen die tot deze baanbrekende overeenkomst leidden, kunnen hen een cruciale les leren over hoe ze met de weerbarstige nederzettingenproblematiek dienen om te gaan.

Net als premier Netanyahu was premier Begin een aanhanger van de bouw van Joodse nederzettingen. Velen zagen in 1977 dan ook de verkiezingswinst van Likudleider Begin als een ernstige tegenslag voor vredesonderhandelingen met de Arabische wereld. Door toch naar Jeruzalem te komen en met aartsvijand Israel over vrede te onderhandelen liep de toenmalige Egyptische president Sadat, net als president Abbas nu, een groot risico als verrader te worden weggezet. En evenals Abbas vandaag eiste de Egyptische president de ontmanteling van alle Joodse nederzettingen in de Westelijke Jordaanoever. Hij waarschuwde dat voortgaande huizenbouw het vredesproces zou torpederen. Toch wisten Begin en Sadat over hun eigen schaduw heen te stappen en de nodige flexibiliteit op te brengen wat hen een Nobelprijs en later een duurzame en stabiele vrede opleverde.  

De Camp David Akkoorden bestonden uit twee onderdelen: de terugtrekking van Israel uit de Sinai woestijn en een regeling voor de toekomst van de Westelijke Jordaanoever en Gazastrook. President Sadat had erop gestaan deze beide gebieden bij de Akkoorden te betrekken om niet de indruk te wekken de Palestijnse zaak te verkwanselen. Hij slaagde daar overigens maar gedeeltelijk in omdat de Palestijnen niet wilden mee onderhandelen. Sadat bracht premier Begin ertoe de 'legitieme rechten van het Palestijnse volk' te erkennen en zelfbestuur in Gaza en de Westelijke Jordaanoever toe te staan. Die belofte was nog ver weg van een rechtvaardige vredesregeling met het Palestijnse volk, die gebaseerd moet zijn op twee onafhankelijke en erkende staten, maar voor een "havik"als Begin was het al heel wat.

Veel minder bekend, maar niet minder indrukwekkend, was dat Begin, eens de grote voorvechter van vrije Joodse vestiging in geheel Eretz Israel, de kolonisten tijdens de onderhandelingen met Egypte beperkingen oplegde. Ha'aretz journalist Akiva Eldar en historicus Idith Zertal beschrijven in hun boek "Lords of the Land" hoe de Israelische regeringsleider de csaar van de kolonisten, Hanan Porath, eerst 12 nederzettingen in de Westoever beloofde en dit aantal later terugbracht tot 6, waarbij de kolonisten ook nog eens zonder familie in legerbases zouden worden ondergebracht. Bovendien dreigde Begin met geweld als de kolonisten zijn voorwaarden niet zouden accepteren.

De Palestijnse kwestie was cruciaal voor Sadat. De Joodse nederzettingen in de Westelijke Jordaanoever en Gazastrook brachten diepe schade toe aan zijn pogingen het Arabische verzet tegen vrede met Israel te breken. De uitstoting van Egypte uit de Arabische Liga toonde hoe eenzaam zijn positie was. En toch hield Sadat niet vast aan het volledig bevriezen van de nederzettingen. Waarschijnlijk begreep hij de moeilijke situatie waarin ook Menachem Begin zich bevond tegenover zijn rechtse coalitie. Daarom bleef de Egyptische president onderhandelen ondanks het feit dat er nog in de nederzettingen gebouwd werd.

Premier Netanyahu zou er goed aan doen het voorbeeld van Menachem Begin te volgen door het bouwen in de nederzettingen na 26 september tot een minimum te beperken. Dat zal hem, net als Begin 32 jaar geleden, de mogelijkheid bieden de wensen van zijn electoraat te respecteren en tegelijkertijd te verhinderen dat extreme kolonisten het vredesproces opblazen met wilde, aanstootgevende bouwactiviteiten.

Anderzijds zouden de Palestijnse onderhandelaars zich niet moeten laten ontmoedigen door het op 26 september aflopen van de bouwstop. Hun beslissing afgelopen week om naar Sharm el Sheikh en Jeruzalem te komen, was hoopgevend, evenals de uitspraak van president Abbas afgelopen donderdag, dat "we allemaal weten dat er geen alternatief is voor vredesonderhandelingen. We hebben dus geen alternatief dan doorgaan met onderhandelen". Sadat zette in 1978 de onderhandelingen stug voort en kreeg uiteindelijk de hele Sinai woestijn en een duurzame vrede ervoor terug. Dat zal nu niet anders te zijn.

Ronny Naftaniel
Directeur CIDI, Centrum Informatie en Documentatie over Israel

 

Abbas wil niet verder onderhandelen zonder verlenging bouwstop nederzettingen

Geen enkel compromis accepteren of zelf voorstellen, en wel continu eisen stellen: dat is hoe Abbas zich tot nu toe opstelt in de onderhandelingen, en met succes. De VS en de EU willen ook dat Israel de bouwstop verlengt, en hebben daarbij geen tegenconcessie van Abbas gevraagd. Ondertussen geldt de bouwstop ook voor Jeruzalem, dat is stilzwijgend zo met de VS overeengekomen, en is dus de vraag of de verlenging ook voor Jeruzalem moet gelden. Abbas zal niet met minder genoegen nemen, en voor Israel is dat zonder enig tegengebaar echt onaanvaardbaar.

 

Regarding Netanyahu's demand that Palestinians recognized Israel as a Jewish state, Abbas said Israel was free to call itself the "Israeli Zionist Jewish Empire" and that was not his business. However, if Israel wanted Palestinian negotiators to recognize its state, it should also recognize a Palestinian state, he said.

 

Het gaat er natuurlijk om dat de Palestijnen erkennen dat de Joden een volk zijn met nationale rechten in Israel, niet wie zich hoe mag noemen. En Israel heeft de Palestijnse nationale aspiraties allang erkend. Netanjahoe herhaalde dit onlangs nog eens:

 

It means that the Palestinians recognize the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in our historic homeland.  I recognized the Palestinians' right to self-determination and sovereignty.  They must finally recognize the Jewish people's right to self determination and sovereignty.
And just as the Jewish state has granted Jews around the world the right to immigrate to Israel, a Palestinian state could decide to grant Palestinians around the world the right to immigrate to their state.  But Palestinian refugees do not have a right to come to the Jewish state.

 

RP

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

 

Abbas: No talks without freeze
Published yesterday 20:28 20 September 2010
www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=316432


NEW YORK (Ma'an) -- President Mahmoud Abbas said Monday he will only negotiate with Israel if restrictions on illegal settlement building are extended.

A 10-month partial settlement freeze is due to expire later this month, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told cabinet ministers Sunday he would not extend it, despite pressure from the US administration, the EU and UN.

Abbas said negotiations would only continue under a settlement freeze, explaining that if the moratorium was extended for one month, he would remain in peace talks for one month.

Direct negotiations were resumed in Washington on 2 September after a 20-month hiatus. The last round of talks broke down when Israel launched its Operation Cast Lead offensive on Gaza in December 2008.

Regarding Netanyahu's demand that Palestinians recognized Israel as a Jewish state, Abbas said Israel was free to call itself the "Israeli Zionist Jewish Empire" and that was not his business. However, if Israel wanted Palestinian negotiators to recognize its state, it should also recognize a Palestinian state, he said.

Palestinian negotiators have recognized Israel's right to exist, but not as a Jewish state, which officials said would prejudice Israel's non-Jewish citizens, and the right of return of Palestinian refugees.

Asked if he feared for his personal future if peace talks collapsed, Abbas said he was "not afraid of anything"

The president said he was angered by the assassination by Israeli soldiers of a Hamas leader at his home in the West Bank city of Tulkarem on Friday, adding that he demanded that Israel stopped its attacks on Palestinian cities.

Netanjahoe legt Israelische onderhandelingspositie uit in toespraak voor Amerikaanse Joodse organisaties

 

Netanjahoe legt heel helder uit wat zijn positie is en waarom hij geen eisen vooraf stelde aan de onderhandelingen, of nu met allerlei eisen komt die, indien niet ingewilligd door Abbas, reden zouden zijn om weg te lopen van de onderhandelingen:

 

...the fact that there was an understanding that we don't turn our disagreements into preconditions for talks.  Because if we do, we'll never get anywhere.  After all, we've been trying to solve this conflict and it's being going on for over 90 years, and we disagree on quite a number of things.  Believe me, every day the Palestinians do things I don't like: whether it's incitement in the schools or media, or an international campaign that they back to delegitimize Israel.

Just yesterday, a Palestinian Authority court ruled that the sale of Palestinian land to Israelis is punishable by death.  You know, all these things do not square well with me, and my colleagues often question why is it that we're staying in the talks.  Some have even questioned why I'm having peace talks with President Abbas when half of the Palestinian people are controlled by Hamas, which is a terror organization that openly calls for our destruction.  I'm mentioning all of these things - and there are many others that I could raise here - because these could afford me many reasons to walk away from the table.  But I haven't walked away from the table.  I want to give these talks a chance to succeed.  And I very much hope that President Abbas will have the same attitude.  I expect him to sit down with me even when we disagree, and to work with me through those disagreements in a sincere effort to forge an historic compromise, which I believe is possible.

 

De onderhandelingen zijn er juist om je grieven op tafel te leggen, om je positie duidelijk te maken, om eisen te stellen en voorstellen te doen, en te geven en te nemen. Al bij het begin continu dreigen eruit te stappen is een kinderachtige houding die de kans van slagen aanzienlijk verkleint. Israel heeft minstens zoveel grieven als de Palestijnen, maar wil die dus in de onderhandelingen bespreken. Dan kan, in onderling overleg en goed vertrouwen, wellicht een deal worden gesloten waarbij een verlenging van de bouwstop en gelijktijdige Palestijnse erkenning van Israel als Joodse staat wordt overeengekomen, of een harde toezegging (met controle) op een einde aan de opruiing in door de PA gecontroleerde media.

Het voordeel hiervan is dat beide partijen een deal kunnen presenteren aan hun regering en parlement waarin men wat heeft ingeleverd maar ook wat krijgt. Abbas verwacht nu dat Israel de bouwstop verlengt, en Netanjahoe dat door zijn regering krijgt zonder iets in ruil, en het is zeer de vraag of dat mogelijk is. Een eis vooraf betekent altijd dat een van de partijen het onderspit delft en dus gezichtverlies leidt. Het geheim van succesvolle onderhandelingen zit hem er denk ik onder andere in dat je elkaar niet in een positie brengt waarin je wordt gedwongen een nederlaag te accepteren of de ander te vernederen.

 

RP

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

PM Netanyahu Talks with the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
Transcription
20/09/2010
www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/PMSpeaks/speechconf200910.htm 

"Just Say It: Just Say Yes to a Jewish State"

Thank you, Alan.  I want to wish you and all the participants in this phone conference Shana Tova, a year of security and prosperity and, G-d willing, peace.

A few weeks ago, we began direct negotiations on the final status issues. Now I'm eager to continue them, and eager to complete them.  We've been calling for direct negotiations for 18 months.  We have asked that these negotiations be conducted without preconditions, so we were very pleased when they began, and hope they'll continue without preconditions.

There are two things that I think made a great impression on me.  One is the commitment of President Obama and Secretary Clinton to assist in the process in our quest for peace.  And I share that commitment.  We want peace.  We know what peace would mean for our people.  We know what it would mean for our neighbors.  We know what it would mean for the region.  The second thing that made an impression on me was what I said a minute ago: the fact that there was an understanding that we don't turn our disagreements into preconditions for talks.  Because if we do, we'll never get anywhere.  After all, we've been trying to solve this conflict and it's being going on for over 90 years, and we disagree on quite a number of things.  Believe me, every day the Palestinians do things I don't like: whether it's incitement in the schools or media, or an international campaign that they back to delegitimize Israel.

Just yesterday, a Palestinian Authority court ruled that the sale of Palestinian land to Israelis is punishable by death.  You know, all these things do not square well with me, and my colleagues often question why is it that we're staying in the talks.  Some have even questioned why I'm having peace talks with President Abbas when half of the Palestinian people are controlled by Hamas, which is a terror organization that openly calls for our destruction.  I'm mentioning all of these things - and there are many others that I could raise here - because these could afford me many reasons to walk away from the table.  But I haven't walked away from the table.  I want to give these talks a chance to succeed.  And I very much hope that President Abbas will have the same attitude.  I expect him to sit down with me even when we disagree, and to work with me through those disagreements in a sincere effort to forge an historic compromise, which I believe is possible.

We got rid of the preconditions before the talks.  We can't reintroduce them five minutes after the talks begin.  We have to sustain a negotiation.  My goal is to reach a framework agreement with the Palestinians within one year.  I brought that up first because I believe it's doable.  Now I know there are many skeptics, but the skepticism that I hear is less about the timeframe - that is a year - and more about whether the Palestinian leadership is truly prepared to make an historic compromise that will end the conflict once and for all.  And again I stress - if I have such a partner who is prepared to make an historic compromise, as I am, I think one year should be enough time to reach a framework agreement for peace.

For negotiations to succeed, we both have to meet.  The two of us will have to meet face to face and discuss the major issues with a degree of discretion.  I think we'll have to build a relationship of trust that will enable us to grapple with the very difficult challenges we face.  I suggested one-on-one meetings every two weeks over the coming year, and thus far we've had very substantive discussions.  We've agreed, as part of the idea of discretion, not to discuss the details of our discussions.  But I can speak to you about the principles that are guiding me in these talks.  I laid out two of those core principles - two foundations for a lasting peace - in my speech last year at Bar-Ilan University.  And these two foundations of peace are recognition and security.  Let me speak briefly about both.

First about recognition:  It's time for the Palestinians to do something they have refused to do for 62 years.  It's time for them to say yes to a Jewish state.  Now what does it mean to recognize the Jewish state, or the nation-state of the Jewish people?

It means that the Palestinians recognize the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in our historic homeland.  I recognized the Palestinians' right to self-determination and sovereignty.  They must finally recognize the Jewish people's right to self determination and sovereignty.

And just as the Jewish state has granted Jews around the world the right to immigrate to Israel, a Palestinian state could decide to grant Palestinians around the world the right to immigrate to their state.  But Palestinian refugees do not have a right to come to the Jewish state.

A Jewish state also means that no one has a right to carve out sub-states within the Jewish state.  There are well over 1 million of citizens of Israel who are not Jewish.  They have equal rights, civil rights, but they don't have national rights.  They have a right to vote, to be elected, and to be full and equal participants in Israel's democracy.   But they don't have a right to have their own separate state.

Why is this recognition important?

It's important because the Palestinian leadership must begin to make clear to its own people that they are making a permanent peace with the Jewish people, a people that has a right to be here, a right to live in its own state and in its own homeland.

Ultimately, there will be no getting around this issue.  For someone who is prepared to make lasting peace with Israel, no statement could be simpler: I recognize Israel as the Jewish state, the state of the Jewish people.

Now, mind you I'm not demanding of others what I am not prepared to do myself.  At Bar-Ilan University last year, I said I was prepared to recognize a Palestinian state.  This is the essence of peace: the nation-state of the Palestinian people.

I think President Abbas has to decide.  He cannot skirt the issue.  He cannot find clever language designed to obfuscate or to fudge it.

He needs to recognize the Jewish state.  He needs to say it clearly and unequivocally.  He needs to say it to his own people in their own language.

Remember that famous commercial - Just Do It?  I think for the Palestinian leadership, it's even simpler:  Just Say It.  Say that you recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.  Say that you recognize the Jewish state.

This is the first point, and I think this is the essence of the problem that we've been facing all these years, the failure or the refusal to recognize the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

The second problem we face is security - I'm going to speak briefly about that too.

We do not want a repeat of what happened after Israel withdrew from Lebanon and Gaza.  Those territories were turned into Iranian sponsored terror bases from which thousands of rockets were fired at Israel.

We have to ensure that we have solid security arrangements on the ground. We have to ensure that we can prevent the import of weapons from territories that we would vacate as part of a peace agreement with the Palestinians. And we have to make sure that we can address the potential threats to peace that will inevitably come.  The first one you've seen - you've seen it in Lebanon, you've seen it in Gaza.  These are the attempts - unfortunately successful in both those places - to smuggle a massive amount of weapons: rockets, missiles and other weapons from Iran to its proxies in the territories.

And then there are other threats: the threats of the reemergence of a potential Eastern front or from an internal change in Palestinian politics, and also there are other threats.

Let me give you an example of a country with which Israel had excellent relations - we had diplomatic ties, trade and economic ties - very robust - cultural exchanges, security ties, you name it - that country was called Iran.  Overnight, however, our relationship changed.

What we need to understand is that a peace agreement by itself does not preserve the peace.  We need to understand that the only peace that will hold in the Middle East is a peace that can be defended.

I have made clear that in order to defend the peace we need a long-term Israeli presence on the eastern side of a Palestinian state - that is, in the Jordan Valley.  I have also said that while I respect the Palestinians desire for sovereignty, I am convinced that we can reconcile that desire with our need for security.

I have to say another thing: I don't believe that under these circumstances, international troops will do the job.  Experience has shown that countries seldom sustain a long-term military commitment abroad in places where their troops are subject to constant attacks.  This is not true in places where those troops aren't subject to constant attacks, but you can find many examples of these two kinds of deployments, and I leave it to your imagination.  You can see what happened to the international forces that were placed, for example, in Gaza before Hamas took it over.  There were European forces; they were called EU BAM, and when the Hamas took over Gaza, and the fighting started, these forces simply disappeared.  They evaporated very quickly.

We live in a very tough neighborhood, and the peace will be tested constantly.  The only force that will be prepared to sustain a long-term commitment is a force that is absolutely convinced that it is defending its own people from attack.   And if we have learned anything from history, it's that the only force that can be relied on to defend the Jewish people is the Israeli Defense Force.

I've said that security arrangements can be reassessed over time, but to say that an Israeli long-term presence is unacceptable from the start, it is simply - I believe - not a serious proposition.  It's a proposition that ignores all the experience we've had since the peace process began.  It ignores the rise of Iran.  It ignores the rise of rocket warfare.  It ignores reality.  And I think there is a serious problem with it logically. I'm not telling you where Israeli sovereignty will be and will not be, but if I take examples from other countries which have the placement of troops from other lands there, even for many years, nobody has seriously said that because Germany and Korea and Japan had U.S. troops on their soil, this was seen as an affront to their respective sovereignties.  Quite the contrary. So the principle that is announced, I think is questionable, and more importantly, it's adaptation to reality, to the reality that we live in, is also questionable.  I think it's just not compatible with the reality that has happened.

I think we've made enormous strides for peace inside Israel.  I think the political landscape has changed.  I think that we have shown great flexibility for peace, but at the same time, Israel has shown a great concern and even a hardening of its positions on security and I think this is warranted by the experiences we've had in the last decade in which the territories that we vacated were taken up by Iran's proxies from which they targeted us with suicide attacks and rocket attacks.  We want peace, but it has to be a secure peace and it there have to be solid security arrangements on the ground to ensure the peace - for us and for our Palestinian neighbors, and maybe for the entire neighborhood.

I believe there's a way that we can resolve these difficult issues.  I don't think they're insurmountable.  I believe that an agreement is possible.

But to succeed, President Abbas and I have to be willing to stick it out even when we disagree.  We have to be willing to address the issues with an open mind.

We have to be flexible and creative in finding compromises that are anchored in a realistic assessment of what is possible.  I expect Palestinian flexibility, not the same positions they've held over the last 10 or 15 years, but a real change just as we've shown that change, because I think you get peace when both sides move to that point in the center where peace is possible.

And we always have to keep in mind the enormous benefits to both our peoples that would come if we can defy the skeptics and forge an historic peace.  If it's up to Israel, that's going to happen.  If it's up to me, it will happen.

Let me wish all of you a good year, a Gmar Tov and a chag sameach.  Shana tova, a year of peace.

Thank you.

Toekomstig Palestina bij een tweestatenoplossing kan ramp voor Israel zijn

 

Barry Rubin is niet zo optimistisch als Bradley Burston over de kansen voor de vredesonderhandelingen tussen Netanjahoe en Abbas, maar zijn zorgen klinken legitiem. Voor veel Israeli's is niet het vasthouden van het land op de Westelijke Jordaanoever als deel van 'historisch Israel' van belang, maar het risico dat als ze dit gebied opgeven, er een vijandige staat wordt gevestigd die meer bedreigend is voor Israel dan de huidige situatie. De huidige situatie is op den duur onhoudbaar, maar zijn er genoeg garanties te geven dat de tweestatenoplossing wel tot een duurzame vrede leidt?

 

Wouter

_______________

Monday, September 20, 2010

A Future History of Palestine: You Want a Two-State Solution? Then Do It Right.

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/09/future-history-of-palestine-you-want.html
By Barry Rubin

 

The following article isn't intended to reject a two-state solution but to point out issues that would inevitably arise if one ever came about. Recently, a once-major American magazine ran a cover story saying Israelis aren't desperately eager for "peace" without ever mentioning the real reasons why that's so:

It's simple: Rather reasonably, Israelis want to know whether they would be better or worse off after making a deal to get a promise of peace in exchange for accepting a fully independent Palestinian state.

Making a strategy requires figuring out where things can go wrong and working to avoid or reduce the consequences. Pretending problems won't happen is the best way to engender catastrophes. So let's look at what would happen:

A gala celebration marks Palestine's day of independence. Some world leaders come bearing promises of financial aid. Arab leaders attending offer little money and, except for Egypt's president and Jordan's king, avoid contact with Israel's delegation.

These celebrations are marred by the absence of leaders from countries--including Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, and Yemen. refusing to recognize the new state. 

Hamas, ruling the Gaza Strip, along with Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian groups, also reject the "traitorous entity." Gaza's rulers mark the occasion by firing rockets into Israel. Palestine's president boasts hollowly that his country includes all of the Gaza Strip but controls nothing there.

Hardly any of the Western media cover statements by some leaders of Palestine's ruling Fatah group that the new country's independence is not the conflict's end but the first step toward total victory and conquest of Israel.

Nor do many note statements of Islamist and Palestinian nationalist Arab groups among Israel's citizens that they now seek to dismantle the Zionist nature of the Israeli state, a goal several European newspapers endorse.

Nor is it widely highlighted in the Western media that the new country officially proclaims itself an Arab and Muslim state while ridiculing the idea of accepting Israel as a Jewish state.

Within a few weeks, infiltrators--some from Hamas, some from Fatah--cross the Palestine-Israel border to attack Israeli motorists and farming villages, set fires, and engage in sabotage. Palestine's government loudly condemns the attacks and claims it is trying to stop them. But the attacks continue even though a few Hamas supporters are rounded up, beaten up, and briefly imprisoned.

Soon, the official Museum of Palestinian History opens with exhibits claiming all of Israel as rightfully part of Palestine. Visiting schoolchildren are told that Tel Aviv, Haifa, Beersheva, and the rest of Israel belong to them and will some day be part of Palestine. Big displays show alleged Israeli atrocities and extol heroes who'd blown themselves up killing many Israeli civilians.

Yet these things, along with anti-Israel incitement in the Palestinian media, mosques, and textbooks, attract little foreign attention. The conflict is over, isn't it? And to publicize such facts, journalists tell each other, would only "play into the hands of Israeli hardliners" and "undermine peace."

Israel, of course, protests the incitement and armed attacks to the UN and Western governments, but those diplomatic efforts bring no response. Israel steps up defenses and builds a border fence at great expense, which helps somewhat. Yet every time Israeli patrols fire on infiltrators trying to get across, Palestine protests--backed by Muslim-majority states—that this is unprovoked Israeli aggression.

In the Middle East, the peace agreement brings little change. True, in some countries hatred toward Israel diminishes a bit. But Syria is still uninterested in peace. Moreover, growing fear of a nuclear Iran, Syria, and revolutionary Islamist groups intimidates other Arab states from making peace with Israel. After all, they say, now that there's a state of Palestine they don't need to do so.

Islamist groups rally against the "treasonous" Palestinian regime and "sell-out" of Palestine to recruit new members. America is no more popular for having fathered a Palestinian state since that birth required concessions and didn't bring all the land under Muslim rule. Violent attacks against U.S., European, and occasionally Palestinian institutions take place in a half-dozen countries.

From this point, we can envision several likely scenarios:

--Growing border tension and cross-border attacks lead to Israeli incursions to fight terrorists against whom the Palestinian government doesn't act effectively. This sets off a crisis in which Israel is branded as the aggressor that is threatening peace and some call for sanctions against it.

--A coup takes place turning Palestine into a military-run regime which might be either more militant, wanting to fight Israel, or more cautious, seeking to crush Hamas.

--As a result of tensions with Israel, internal conflicts, a radical regime, or coup, the Palestinian government obtains military equipment, including advanced anti-aircraft missiles, violating the peace agreement. What's the world going to do to enforce that treaty? Probably very little.

--As a result of the list of scenarios given in the previous paragraph, the Palestinian government calls in foreign troops, possibly Syrian or Iranian. What's the world going to do about that? How would the world respond to Israel taking military action against such threats and treaty violations?

--A Hamas coup, far more likely to happen than the Palestinian government conquering the Gaza Strip, produces a pro-Tehran Hamas regime which, perhaps partnered with militant Fatah leaders, tears up the peace agreement and announces an alliance with Iran, making Israel and Western strategic interests worse off than ever.

Of course, we can also assume everything goes well and everyone lives happily ever after, that Palestinians become interested only in raising their living standards and keeping things quiet. That might happen.

But while the above scenarios are speculative they are better rooted in experience and reality than is the "best-case" alternative. At any rate, betting the lives of millions of people, Israel's future, and Western strategic interests must be based on something better than wishful thinking and refusing to acknowledge the threats involved.

Tell me, if you can, how the above predictions are ridiculously unlikely or impossible. The only likely response is: Shut up! You are endangering the possibility of peace!

Have you ever seen serious discussion of any of these points from Western experts, media, or governments?

Is there any sign of steps being taken to avoid such outcomes in the Western approach to the issue?

O course, this is all hypothetical. In practice, the Palestinian Authority isn't going to make peace for many years to come.

While many would read this article as reason to oppose any two-state solution altogether. I, like most Israelis, favor a two-state solution if done properly. Yet if no one takes these dangers seriously, why should Israel make concessions, take risks, and rush into such a situation where it would be very likely worse off than it is now?

All we are saying is to give peace a chance. But only if it is likely to be a peace that is lasting and better than the status quo for all concerned.

 

=========
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), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports,

 

 

Bradley Burston over de neergang van de kolonistenbeweging in Israel

 

Verslaggevers in Israel en andere zogenaamde deskundigen wijzen graag op de macht van de kolonisten in Israel en stellen Netanjahoe als een rechtse havik voor. Ook het Israelische publiek zou geen echte concessies willen doen en vasthouden aan 'Judea en Samaria'. In werkelijkheid is een meerderheid van het Israelische publiek voor terugtrekking uit het merendeel van de Westoever en een einde aan de bezetting. Men is huiverig voor Palestijnse soevereiniteit vanwege het gevaar dat Hamas de macht zal overnemen en de Westoever net als Gaza en Zuid-Libanon vol zal worden gezet met raketten. Dat, en niet Gods belofte aan Abraham of vermeende Joodse superioriteit, heeft Netanjahoe relatief veel zetels gegeven en een rechtsere regering mogelijk gemaakt. Maar ook Netanjahoe is pragmatischer dan men hier wil zien. Terwijl men zijn best doet om uitspraken van Hamas (en andere Palestijnse leiders) zo gematigd mogelijk uit te leggen, ziet men de werkelijke ideologische verandering van Netanjahoe geheel over het hoofd.

 

Settler leaders have also suggested that the movement's will to resist such a change is much diminished since the Gaza disengagement. Senior Yesha official Shaul Goldstein remarked at the outset of the settlement freeze that most settlers were too "moderate" to take off from jobs to attend protests, even though he said the freeze "means that life might stop."

Most daunting to the settlers and their supporters is the fear that Benjamin Netanyahu may opt to follow in the paths of hawkish Likud founders Sharon and Menachem Begin, and launch a landmark withdrawal. It was Begin, settlers note, who pledged as he took power as prime minister, that he would someday retire to a settlement in then-occupied Sinai - only to return the entire peninsula and demolish the settlements there under the 1979 Camp David peace treaty.

Israel Harel, a founder and former leader of the Yesha Council and one of the most prominent voices of the movement, warned last week of the "huge ideological about-face" he said that Netanyahu had undergone.

 

 

RP

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

 

Published 15:31 20.09.10 Latest update 15:31 20.09.10

Special Place in Hell / Breaking Israel to fix it – rightists rethink holding the West Bank

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/special-place-in-hell-breaking-israel-to-fix-it-rightists-rethink-holding-the-west-bank-1.314809

 

So profound is the fear that Netanyahu may commit to a sea change on the West Bank, and succeed in mobilizing the support of a consensus of Israeli and U.S. Jews, it has now spread to some of the most vocal and - until now - most unflagging of the prime minister's past admirers.

By Bradley Burston

 

 

Every revolution tends to believe that it is forever. Nowhere is this more evident than Israel, for six decades cradle and crucible to concurrent revolutions.

But the fate of every revolutionary movement is to age, to fall prey to fissures and compound fractures, and to be astounded to find that one day, it has become history.

Now it is the turn of the settlers. Though the trappings of their past success remain, their revolution is broken. The settlement movement – along with the dovish revolution whose banner was land for peace – was shattered in the chaos of the Al-Aqsa Intifada.

In just six days in 2005, the single most indispensible figure in rooting settlements into the territories, Ariel Sharon, quashed a quarter century of Israeli settlement in the Gaza Strip – at the approval of two-thirds of the Israeli electorate.

The settlement revolution has never truly recovered. Even as it insists that West Bank settlements can never be undone, the movement is both haunted and crippled by its own private Naqba, the loss of the dream of a Greater Israel in the Likud government's disengagement.

Of late, figures of significance on the right of both the Israeli and American Jewish communities have begun to rethink the future of the settlers' core redoubt: the West Bank.

As Israeli-Palestinian negotiations resumed this month, influential Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer astounded many colleagues on the right by observing that "No serious player believes it can hang on forever to the West Bank.

"This has created a unique phenomenon in Israel - a broad-based national consensus for giving nearly all the West Bank in return for peace," Krauthammer continued. "The moment is doubly unique because the only man who can deliver such a deal is Likud Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu - and he is prepared to do it."

The comments coincided with a number of indications of a beginning of change on the right and within the settlement movement itself.

Among the more intriguing is a group of young Israelis – some of whom grew up in West Bank settlements - who have moved back into Israel to resettle the abandoned kibbutz of Retamim in the central Negev.

The group includes the son of Pinchas Wallerstein, a former longtime leader of the Yesha Council, the effective government of the settlement movement.

At the same time, some residents of settlements outside the blocs which U.S. officials foresee could be appended to Israel in the context of a withdrawal, have been putting out feelers to Israeli government agencies about possible compensation for voluntarily moving back to Israel in the future.

Another shift in thinking is increasing sentiment for the possibility of a unilateral West Bank withdrawal outside the context of negotiations with the Palestinians. For many Israelis, this dovetails with fast-evaporating hopes for an eventual peace agreement with a deeply divided Palestinian body politic.

Israeli analyst Guy Bechor, who has often argued for hardline stances vis a vis the Palestinians,  wrote last week that Israel should now deliver an ultimatum to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas: "This is your and your administration's last chance. If we fail to secure a quick agreement, where Israel's demands are recognized, we shall unilaterally evacuate most of Judea and Samaria, annex the settlement blocs and Jerusalem's Old City, and abandon you and your regime to Hamas' and Jordan's mercy.

Bechor has also proposed that Israel renounce its annexation of most of Arab East Jerusalem and cede control over it. "An immense burden – on the political, defense, economic, and public relations fronts – will be lifted from our shoulders when the status of Palestinians in east Jerusalem will be the same as that of Palestinians across the West Bank," he wrote earlier this year.

"This will happen eventually in any case, according to the world, so why not do it now?"

Most daunting to the settlers and their supporters is the fear that Benjamin Netanyahu may opt to follow in the paths of hawkish Likud founders Sharon and Menachem Begin, and launch a landmark withdrawal. It was Begin, settlers note, who pledged as he took power as prime minister, that he would someday retire to a settlement in then-occupied Sinai - only to return the entire peninsula and demolish the settlements there under the 1979 Camp David peace treaty.

Israel Harel, a founder and former leader of the Yesha Council and one of the most prominent voices of the movement, warned last week of the "huge ideological about-face" he said that Netanyahu had undergone.

Noting that Netanyahu had begun speaking of "two states for two peoples" and calling Judea and Samaria "the West bank," Harel wrote in Haaretz that many of the prime minister's critics "cannot grasp the fact that Netanyahu, via his statements, has embarked on a road from which there is no turning back."

The ultimate fear is that if Netanyahu takes a position in line with Washington's vision of concessions, the Likud and the cabinet - for all its drumbeat of eternal commitment to the settlers - will go along.

Settler leaders have also suggested that the movement's will to resist such a change is much diminished since the Gaza disengagement. Senior Yesha official Shaul Goldstein remarked at the outset of the settlement freeze that most settlers were too "moderate" to take off from jobs to attend protests, even though he said the freeze "means that life might stop."

Since the Gaza pullout, the Yesha Council has also lost much of its influence with young firebrand activists, many of whom now dismiss the council as mashtapim [collaborators] and bourgeois.

There are also fears that radical actions by young "hilltop youth," the movement's volatile shock troops, could further alienate the Israeli mainstream, adding consensus support to a West Bank withdrawal.

The lack of movement toward a formalized peace accord is also spurring general Israeli interest in a pullout, based on the sense that if no action is taken soon to separate Israel from the more than 2.5 million Palestinians of the West Bank, the Jewish state will effectively become an Arab country.

Through it all, Netanyahu remains the linchpin to any move to alter the status of the West Bank. If Netanyahu were to play the Iran card, citing U.S. pressure for concessions in return for security assurances, even rabbis staunchly opposed to withdrawal would have to rethink their stances, Harel maintains.

"Any rabbi would agree that when it comes to saving the nation from the Iranian bomb, national pikuah nefesh (saving a life) takes precedence over Judea and Samaria."

On Monday, speculation grew that Netanyahu was mulling a major step, when Israel Channel Two television reported that he backed legislation for a referendum on a future West Bank agreement. Apart from a possible signal of the prime minister's intentions, a referendum could blunt and overcome rightist opposition to a withdrawal.

So profound is the fear that Netanyahu may commit to a sea change on the West Bank, and succeed in mobilizing the support of a consensus of Israeli and U.S. Jews, it has now spread to some of the most vocal and - until now - most unflagging of the prime minister's past admirers.

"Netanyahu's preference for appeasement is both ironic and destructive." The Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick writes. While Krauthammer's "arrogant and false portrayal of reality is debilitating," she continues, "it is Netanyahu who is charged with leading and defending Israel."

"And Netanyahu is the man who is now leading us on a path to degradation and defeat."

 

Palestijnse opiniepeiling No. 41 over PA, Hamas en vredesonderhandelingen met Israel

 

Voor al diegenen die menen dat Hamas zo populair is onder de Palestijnen en profiteert van de Westerse boycot en Israelische represailles, moeten de uitslagen van deze enquete als een volslagen verrassing komen. In alle vragen die over Hamas en Fatah gaan blijkt dat zij onpopulair is en weinig kiezers zal trekken wanneer er nieuwe verkiezingen worden gehouden:

 

If presidential elections are held in the present time, to whom from among the following do you give your vote?

5.7 An independent candidate
3.2 A candidate from the left
10.4 A candidate from Hamas
32.3 A candidate from Fateh
5.0 A national independent candidate
3.5 An Islamic independent candidate
20.8 I will not participate in the elections
19.2 I have not decided yet

If new PLC elections are conducted, whom do you vote for?

6.0 An independent ticket
3.2 A ticket from the left
10.7 A ticket from Hamas
33.2 A ticket from Fateh
4.6 A national independent ticket
3.6 An Islamic independent ticket
20.9 I will not participate in the elections
17.9 I have not decided yet

If new legislative elections were to be held today, which of the following
would win?

3.1 Independent Islamists bloc
7.9 Independent Nationalist bloc
47.4 Fateh bloc
15.9 Hamas bloc
2.1 A bloc from leftist organizations
23.6 No opinion/I do not know

If municipality and local council elections were to be held, who do you vote for?

8.6 A block that represents the family or clan
4.8 An independent ticket
2.6 A ticket from the left
11.6 A ticket from Hamas
29.9 A ticket from Fateh
4.6 A national independent ticket
2.6 An Islamic independent ticket
17.3 I will not participate in the elections
17.9 I have not decided yet

As you know, there is a government in the West Bank led by Salam Fayyad and another government in the Gaza Strip led by Ismail Haniyeh. In your opinion which government is more capable of managing the internal Palestinian affairs?

61.3 The government of Salam Fayyad
22.0 The Government of Ismail Haniyeh
16.7 No opinion/I do not know

How do you assess the performance of the government of Salam Fayyad?

68.3 Good
23.0 Bad
8.7 No opinion/I do not know

How do you assess the performance of the government of Ismail Haniyeh?

35.1 Good
43.9 Bad
20.9 No opinion/I do not know

Dat is goed nieuws, want het betekent dat aan de macht van Hamas op democratische wijze een einde gemaakt kan worden. Het betekent echter ook dat Hamas helemaal niet zoveel steun heeft onder de bevolking en het daarom niet arrogant of wat dan ook is dat het Westen geen zaken doet met Hamas. Hamas heeft in de Gazastrook ondemocratisch de macht gegrepen in een bloedige coup drie jaar geleden, en sindsdien de vrijheden van de bevolking stelselmatig ingeperkt. Het is ook een fabel dat Fayyad en Abbas slechts door het Westen in het zadel worden gehouden en eigenlijk maar weinig steun hebben onder de bevolking. Ondanks de corruptie en andere problemen wordt de regering van Fayyad redelijk positief beoordeeld.

 

Ook uit deze enquete blijkt overigens weer dat de Palestijnen heel Jeruzalem willen hebben, ook West Jeruzalem:

 

Do you support or reject making Jerusalem a capital for two states: Palestine and Israel?

19.4 I support
78.0 I reject
2.6 No opinion/I do not know

 

Dit bleek onlangs ook uit een andere enquete en uit uitspraken van Abbas, maar het wil niet doordringen tot het Westen.

 

RP

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

 

Voor de volledige uitslag van de peiling:

Results of Palestinian Public Opinion Poll No. 41
17-19 September 2010
http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=22591&CategoryId=17

 

 

Een meerderheid van de Palestijnen steunt de vredesonderhandelingen, maar minder dan een kwart verwacht dat ze succes hebben. Daarmee zijn de Palestijnen misschien nog optimistischer dan de rest van de wereld, in elk geval optimistischer dan de meeste media en commentatoren:

Do you support or reject the PA's engagement in direct talks with the Israeli Government?

56.7 I support
38.4 I reject
4.8 No opinion/I do not know


Do you expect failure or success of the direct talks between the PA and the Israeli Government?

23.1 I expect success
67.9 I expect failure
9.0 No opinion/I do not know

Weigering Israëlische burgemeesters Westoever door VNG 'bizar'

 

De VNG motiveert haar weigering Joodse burgemeesters van de Westelijke Jordaanoever te ontvangen als volgt:

 

De organisatie doet dat naar eigen zeggen om haar neutraliteit 'ten aanzien van zowel Israël als Palestina' te benadrukken en de 'goede banden' met beide partijen te kunnen behouden. "Omdat de Israëlische nederzettingen een van de grootste strijdpunten tussen Israël en Palestina vormen en op dit moment ook in de onderhandelingen tussen Israël en Palestina worden besproken, zou de VNG in het conflict worden betrokken door aan een dergelijk werkbezoek mee te werken." (bron: Trouw)

 

Maar juist deze weigering is een zeer politieke daad die haar neutraliteit schendt. Zij neemt daarmee immers een duidelijk standpunt in wat betreft de (toekomstige) grenzen van de staat Israel. De status van de nederzettingen en de vraag welke nederzettingen wellicht bij Israel zullen komen is onderdeel van de onderhandelingen tussen beide partijen. Efrat, waar een van de burgemeesters vandaan komt, is onderdeel van het Etzion blok dat Israel wil houden. Bovendien was Gush Etzion al voor 1948 Joods en zijn de Joden daar juist verdreven door het Jordaanse leger. De VNG had het bezoek gewoon door kunnen laten gaan en op eventuele kritische vragen kunnen antwoorden dat zij geen standpunt inneemt over de nederzettingen en het slechts een werkbezoek betreft. Dat was een neutrale positie geweest. Als de Palestijnen belangstelling hebben om te komen, had men die evengoed ontvangen, evenals Arabische burgemeesters uit Israel. Nu worden bepaalde mensen uitgesloten vanuit een politieke motivatie. Dat is juist het tegenovergestelde van neutraliteit. Hopelijk leiden de kamervragen tot een herziening van dit besluit.

 

RP

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

http://www.nd.nl/artikelen/2010/september/20/cu-weigering-israelische-burgemeesters-bizar-

Weigering Israëlische burgemeesters 'bizar'

Geplaatst: 20 september 2010 10:51, laatste wijziging: 20 september 2010 12:34

van onze redactie politiek

DEN HAAG – De ChristenUnie vindt het een `belediging' jegens Israël dat de Vereniging van Nederlandse Gemeenten (VNG)  Israëlische burgemeesters uit de Westelijke Jordaanoever toegang tot Nederland weigert.

Kamerlid Joël Voordewind heeft hierover vragen gesteld aan minister Verhagen van Buitenlandse zaken. De VNG heeft geweigerd voor volgende maand een reis naar Nederland te organiseren voor Israëlische burgemeesters, omdat dit `politiek gevoelig' zou zijn. Toen bekend werd dat er bestuurders van Israëlische nederzettingen onder de deelnemers zouden zitten, heeft de VNG haar handen van de organisatie afgetrokken.

Voordewind wil vooral opheldering over de rol van de Nederlandse ambassade in Tel Aviv. Die zou een sterk advies aan de VNG hebben gegeven om de reis niet te organiseren. ,,Dat is bizar'', reageert Voordewind. ,,Nederland is hiermee het enige land in de EU dat mensen uit Israël weigert. Eerder is er wel een dergelijke reis naar Denemarken geweest.'' Bovendien zou Nederland zich zo met de onderhandelingen over de precieze grenzen van de Westelijke Jordaanoever bemoeien, meent Voordewind. ,,We doen alsof we zelf aan de onderhandelingtafel zitten.''

De weigering is in Israël slecht gevallen, constateert het Kamerlid. ,,Ze ervaren het echt als een klap in hun gezicht.'' SP-Kamerlid Harry van Bommel noemt de opstelling van de VNG om de Israëliërs niet te ontvangen juist `moedig'.

 

Palestijnse Autoriteit bevestigt doodstraf voor landverkopen aan Israeli's

 

De gedroomde Palestijnse staat kent al jaren de doodstraf, al wordt die formeel niet uitgevoerd omdat dat Abbas op flinke internationale kritiek zou komen te staan, en de PA kent het belang van goede PR. Doorgaans wordt het de Palestijnen wat dat betreft ook niet al te lastig gemaakt: intern Palestijns geweld, zoals het liquideren van 'landverraders' krijgt zelden aandacht in de Westerse media, en ophitsing tegen Israel en Joden wordt structureel genegeerd -- tenzij ze een Mickey Mouse tot de Jihad laten oproepen en Disney zich gaat beklagen: dan komt het in de rubriek 'Man bijt hond'.

 

Wouter

____________

The Jerusalem Post
PA affirms death penalty for land sales to Israelis
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
09/20/2010 01:23
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=188604


The PA says the land law is necessary to prevent the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

The Palestinian Authority on Sunday reaffirmed the death penalty for any Palestinian found guilty of selling land to Israelis.

The decision came in response to a ruling by a Palestinian court according to which such acts were only a "minor offense."

PA Prosecutor-General Ahmed al-Mughni appealed against the ruling to a higher court, arguing that the sale of land to Israelis was a "major offense" punishable by death.

The appeal was accepted.

That verdict considering such offenses a major offense is aimed at reminding Palestinians of the PA law that prohibits selling land to Jews, Mughni said.

The land law, which was originally put in force by Jordan between 1948 and 1967, carries the death sentence.

The PA says the law is necessary to prevent the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

In 1997, the PA announced that it would seek the death penalty for any Palestinian convicted of selling land to Jews or Israelis, in accordance with the Jordanian "Law for Preventing the Sale of Real Estate to the Enemy."

According to the 1973 legislation, the sale of property to Jews or Israelis constitutes a crime against state security and well-being, punishable by death and the confiscation of the culprit's possessions.

The PA later drafted its own law to replace the Jordanian statute. The law is called the "Property Law for Foreigners."

It describes the sale of land to "occupiers" as an act of "national treason." Although the PA has thus far refrained from executing those convicted of selling land to Jews, there have been many extrajudicial killings of Palestinian suspects over the past decades.

Hamas wilde na aanslag bij Hebron lichamen van slachtoffers ontvoeren

Hamas heeft met de aanslag op vier Israeli's op de Westelijke Jordaanoever de vredesbesprekingen willen verstoren, en zelfs het aftreden van president Abbas willen forceren. Door de lichamen te stelen had een sterkere Israelische reactie uitgelokt kunnen worden, die Abbas sterker onder druk had gezet. Tot zover Hamas' vredelievende bedoelingen zoals die geregeld door mensen als Meulenbelt en Duisenberg worden bezongen.

 

RP

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

JPost  - Mon, Sep 20, 2010
The Jerusalem Post
'Hamas planned to steal bodies of Kiryat Arba victims'
By JPOST.COM STAFF
09/20/2010 13:47
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=188667


Egyptian newspaper reports terrorists said in interrogation that the attack was supposed to look like a kidnapping, cause peace talks' failure.

The members of Hamas's military wing who carried out the terror attack in the West Bank near Kiryat Arba last month in which four Israeli's were killed planned to steal the victims' bodies to make Israel believe the incident was a kidnapping, Egyptian weekly al-Ahram reported on Monday.

According to the report, the terror suspects arrested by Palestinian security forces following the attacks told their interrogators that their mission was to stage a kidnapping, causing Israel to impose a mass closure of the West Bank and thus derail peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The terrorist hoped that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas would be forced to resign as a result of the peace talks failing.

The Palestinian sources cited in the report claimed that the attacks were carried out on the orders of Hamas leadership in Gaza and Damascus.

The plan to steal the bodies was prevented by a passing car which forced the terrorists to flee the scene.

The four victims, described by a settler spokesman as a couple and two hitchhikers – were driving on Route 60 near the entrance to Kiryat Arba when their vehicle came under fire. The victims were named as Yitzhak Ames, 47, and his wife Tali Ames, 45, Kochava Even-Haim, 37, and Avishai Schindler, 24, all from Beit Hagai. The Ames couple had six children, including a one-and-a-half-year-old toddler.

Mubarak: Arabische en islamitische staten prima, maar géén Joodse staat

 

President Hosni Mubarak van Egypte zei afgelopen zaterdag op de Israelische TV:

"I say to Israeli citizens, including Jews, Muslims and others, that there is no such thing as a state in which all the citizens are Jews," Mubarak said. "In Egypt, we have Muslims, Christians and Jews and there is no problem. When they wanted to establish a Muslim state in Kosovo, the world came out against it because it did not want a Muslim state in central Europe."

In Egypte wonen inderdaad christenen, maar nauwelijks Joden. Die zijn allemaal verdreven in de jaren '50 en '60, met achterlating van hun bezittingen en land. Niet alleen hebben zij nooit compensatie gekregen, Egypte weigert haar spijt te betuigen voor dit grote onrecht. Zie voor een persoonlijk verslag van een Egyptische Jood: My Personal Exodus from Egypt

In de Egyptische grondwet staat:

Art. 1:  The Arab Republic of Egypt is a Socialist Democratic State based on the alliance of the working forces of the people. The Egyptian people are part of the Arab Nation and work for the realization of its comprehensive unity.

Art.2 : Islam is the Religion of the State. Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).

Andere Arabische staten en ook de Palestijnen hebben vergelijkbare dingen in hun grondwet staan. In Israel is het Jodendom niet de staatsreligie, noch stelt Israel dat al haar inwoners allemaal deel zijn van de Joodse natie. Israel vraagt alleen om erkenning van het feit dat zij de natie-staat is van het Joodse volk. Zij wil dat de Arabieren eindelijk eens erkennen dat er zoiets is als een Joods volk (iets dat ook Mubarak in bovenstaande verklaring weer ontkent) en dat dit volk nationale rechten heeft, en wel daar waar haar wortels liggen en waar zij altijd mee verbonden is gebleven: het land van Israel. Zolang dat niet wordt erkend is vrede onmogelijk.

 

RP

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

 

Born: Haaretz, 19 september 2010

 

PLO ambassadeur in Libanon: doel vredesbesprekingen is delegitimeren van "rebels, racistisch" Israel

Het Palestijnse doel van de vredesbesprekingen is niet om vrede een stap dichterbij te brengen, om het eens te worden over grenzen of een regeling voor Jeruzalem of de veiligheid of de nederzettingen. Nee, het doel is om Israel te delegitimeren en isoleren, zoals indertijd met Zuid-Afrika is gebeurd. Aldus de PLO ambassadeur in Libanon:

 

"The PLO's representative in Lebanon, Ambassador Abdullah Abdullah, emphasized yesterday that the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, which have started in Washington, are not a goal, but rather another stage in the Palestinian struggle... He believes that Israel will not be dealt a knock-out defeat, but rather an accumulation of Palestinian achievements and struggles, as happened in South Africa, to isolate Israel, to tighten the noose on it, to threaten its legitimacy, and to present it as a rebellious, racist state. He noted that Israel faces international isolation with doubt cast on its legitimacy, because of its actions and the war crimes which it has carried out. He added, 'Many Israelis in senior positions are afraid to travel to European countries lest they be put on trial for their crimes.'"

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Sept. 9, 2010]

 

Jammer. Je blijft toch altijd hopen tegen beter weten in dat men probeert tijdens vredesonderhandelingen om daadwerkelijk vrede te sluiten.

 

RP

-----------

 

Bron: PMW Bulletin, Sept. 19, 2010

'PLO ambassador in Lebanon: Peace talks are stage in delegitimizing "rebellious, racist" Israel', by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

(PMW | King George 59 | Jerusalem | Israel)

Aznar's Friends of Israel Initiative - A new voice for Israel

A new voice for Israel

16.09. 2010

http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000758.html

 

The following are extracts of remarks by Jose María Aznar, at the US launch of the Friends of Israel Initiative on September 14, 2010 in Washington, D.C. Nobody has summarized the international attack against Israel better, and nobody has made a more eloquent case for Israel. These remarks deserve the widest possible publicity [A.I.]

..., Israel is under a new kind of attack. Not conventional war as in 1948, 56, 67 or 73. Not terrorism as we saw in the 70s, 80s and 90s. But a new kind of attack – an attack on Israel legitimacy, on her right to exist. A "soft-war", where many of its adversaries are employing legal tricks, multinational bodies, and an army of dubious NGO's to present internationally Israel as an illegitimate state, as a barbarian state, a state that should be isolated and converted into a pariah state.

We think this is intolerable. It is unjust, morally wrong, and a strategic risk -- not only for Israel and its people -- but for all of us.

Israel is an integral part of the West, and the weaker it is, the weaker the entire West will be perceived to be.

Even if we want to turn away from the traumas of 9/11, we simply do not have the luxury to choose our enemies. As Senators Baker, Dole, Daschle and Mitchell made clear in their latest report, published 5 days ago. by the Bipartisan Policy Center, the threat to our way of life from radical Islamists is real, and it has not yet been eliminated.

Let me be clear. We don't want in any case to defend any particular Israeli government or any particular set of policies or any particular party. Israelis' institutions are mature enough to defend their choices. We want to stand up for the right of Israel to exist. Judaeo-Christian values form the roots of our civilization. Delegitimizing Israel undermines our identity, warps our values and put at risk what we are and who we are.

So, dear friends, it is not only the threat that if Israel goes down, which, make no mistake, many of its enemies would like to see happen, we all go down. It is that letting Israel be demonized will lead to the deligitimation of our own cherished values. If Israel were to disappear by the force of its enemies, I sincerely doubt the West could remain as we know it.

So, I conclude: Is it craziness for a group, as I said before, of mostly Europeans and non-Jews, to say: "Enough. Stop this nonsense of making Israel responsible for all the problems in the region, if not beyond? Enough of the short-sightedness which refuses to see Israel as a cornerstone of our Western civilization?"

We do believe that far from it, it is vital. For America, for the West, for Israel. And for our children and grandchildren and the world they will inherit. Because there is still right and wrong in this complicated world. And if we allow those fundamentals to be blurred and eroded and confused, we will all be dangerously adrift.

Defending Israel today means strengthening the West, standing up for our values, and their right to exist as a normal country, a fellow democracy and a celebrated ally in our great western alliance.

I hope that you will share our vision, and will help us in bringing reason and decency back to the discussion concerning Israel.


Thank you very much

Jose María Aznar

 

 

Hamas promoot zwarte-kousen-islam en sluit losbandige cafés waar vrouwen waterpijp roken

 

De nieuwe helden van post-feministe Anje Meulenbelt in aksie.....

 

wOuTeR

__________________

 

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/09/hamas-keeps-curtailing-human-rights.html

Hamas keeps curtailing human rights; world keeps ignoring it (updated)

Here are some recent violations of human rights by Hamas that you will not find mentioned in the New York Times, Reuters, the Guardian or pretty much anywhere else.

This week, Hamas prevented Gaza journalists from participating in a video-conference with their West Bank counterparts and a delegation of the International Federation of Journalists in Ramallah.

Hamas shut down a restaurant/cafe called Al-Orient House because it was sponsoring concerts and other events for both men and women.

A cultural evening hosted by the Film Forum at the Samak restaurant, scheduled to be held on September 7, was shut down despite the organizers already having obtained a permit. Two of the organizers were arrested and forced to sign a pledge not to host any similar events.

On September 12th, a cultural evening organized by the Alumni Association of various Gaza community colleges was forced to end when Hamas shut it down.

The "Crazy Water Park" was shut down twice, once for three days in August and once in September. The August closing was because of "raucous concerts" but no reason was given for the more recent closing, in effect for 21 days.

Other recent closings included the Equestrian Club and the Sama Gaza coffee shop, the latter because of "mixing and hookah-smoking women."

Wow...sounds like maybe Gazans really are living in an open-air prison, with Hamas acting as the warden. Not that you will hear any well-known activists say that.

UPDATE: Hamas closed a restaurant Wednesday because a woman was smoking a water pipe.

 

 

Maxime Verhagen heeft natuurlijk gelijk en 'is stating the obvious' maar het zal de wereld wel weer in gaan als blijk van zijn pro-Israel bias. De VN 'Mensenrechtenraad' is eigenlijk niet serieus te nemen en alle vrije staten zouden er misschien maar uit weg moeten lopen, zodat duidelijk wordt dat het om een kliek van (half)dictaturen gaat die elkaar de hand boven het hoofd houden.

 

RP

--------

 

 

http://www.rnw.nl/nederlands/article/verhagen-regimes-verlammen-mensenrechtenraad

Verhagen: regimes verlammen Mensenrechtenraad

Gepubliceerd : 16 september 2010 - 4:38 pm | door Erik Klooster 

Landen die zelf de mensenrechten schenden, zorgen er doelbewust voor dat de VN Mensenrechtenraad in Genève niet werkelijk effectief kan zijn. Dat is de conclusie van de Nederlandse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Maxime Verhagen, in een brief over de werkzaamheid van de Mensenrechtenraad.  

Lidstaten van de Mensenrechtenraad tasten de middelen aan die de VN hebben om mensenrechten te beschermen, schrijft Verhagen aan de Tweede Kamer. Ook verzetten ze zich tegen kritiek, met een onterecht beroep op de nationale soevereiniteit.

Verhagen blikt in zijn brief terug op vier jaar Mensenrechtenraad als opvolger van de Mensenrechtencommissie. De minister vindt ook dat Israël disproportionele aandacht krijgt binnen de raad, waardoor de situatie in andere landen onderbelicht blijft. Binnen de raad was veel ophef over het onderzoek naar de oorlog in Gaza. 

Allianties 
De internationale NGO Freedom House is het grotendeels met Verhagen eens. Volgens Freedom House dekt de raad sommige ernstige mensenrechtenschendingen zelfs toe.

Zoals de afbeelding laat zien, is de meerderheid van de 47 lidstaten niet vrij, of slechts gedeeltelijk vrij. Ze zouden als blok stemmen om elkaar tegen kritiek te beschermen. Zo slaagt de raad er niet in om misstanden in landen als Iran, Sudan en Cuba aan de kaak te stellen.

Succes
De vijftiende zitting is van start gegaan en duurt tot en met 1 oktober. Nederland heeft zijn plek bij toerbeurt moeten afstaan, maar blijft zich op de achtergrond inzetten voor de raad, aldus minister Verhagen.

De bewindsman maakt ook duidelijk waar de raad wél iets heeft bereikt. Hij wijst op resoluties over geweld tegen vrouwen, de rechten van het kind en het recht op water en toiletten.

Examens
Ook de examens die landen moeten afleggen over de mensenrechten in hun eigen land zijn effectief, stelt Verhagen. Nederland kreeg overigens op een aantal punten zoals discriminatie en het asielbeleid zelf kritiek te verduren uit Genève.

Verhagen maakt zich zorgen over de grote nadruk op religieuze identiteit en godslastering. Dat gaat ten koste van de aandacht voor het individu, vreest Verhagen.

IDF doodt Hamas commandant op de Westoever

 

Zelfs het doden van een leider van de Al Qassam Brigades, de militaire vleugel van Hamas, is volgens apologeten van de Palestijnen hoogst immoreel. Het zou Hamas maar boos maken en daarme meer geweld uitlokken. Hamas probeert al jaren om ook op de Westoever de macht over te nemen, en aanslagen te plegen op Israelische doelen. Vorige week werden vier Israelische burgers, waaronder een zwangere vrouw, van dichtbij in koelen bloede doodgeschoten door Hamas. Men beloofde meer en heftigere aanslagen. Een militaire leider doden lijkt mij in zo'n geval een gepast antwoord, dat bovendien de kans dat Hamas de vredesbesprekingen kan verstoren weer een klein beetje kleiner heeft gemaakt. Het is natuurlijk een fabel dat geweld tegen Hamas de beweging sterker maakt en radikaler, en het daarom beter is haar haar gang maar te laten gaan, waarna ze zomaar vanzelf heel redelijk en gematigd zal worden en zal stoppen met het doden van burgers. De Gaza oorlog laat het omgekeerde zien: Hamas is militair te treffen en in toom te houden. Het is door de afschrikking die daarvan uit gaat, niet uit liefde voor Israel, dat zij zich sindsdien relatief koest heeft gehouden.

 

RP

----------

 

IDF kills Hamas military commander in West Bank

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=188429

By JPOST.COM STAFF
09/17/2010 08:32

 

IDF says strongman ran towards soldiers in threatening manner, ignored requests to stop, resulting in him being shot.

IDF soldiers killed a Hamas military commander overnight Thursday during security operations east of the West Bank city of Tulkarm, the IDF spokesperson's Unit said in a statement on Friday morning.

The statement said that the Hamas member, Iyad Abu Shalabiya, ran towards IDF soldiers in a threatening manner, and had ignored the IDF's requests to cease his approach, resulting in him being shot.

Miltary sources said that Shalabiya spent several years in Israeli prisons and was wanted for questioning.

Twelve other suspects were arrested during the raid.
The circumstances of the incident are under investigation.

The shooting comes two days after 10 rockets and mortar shells – including two containing phosphorus – were fired into Israel from the Gaza Strip as defense officials predicted that the violence would quiet down after Succot.

Rockets and shells pounded the Eshkol region throughout the day. One of the rockets – a 122-mm. Katyusha – hit just north of Ashkelon. No injuries or damage were reported.

Arabische Liga wijst "Joodse staat" af

 

Het verbaast natuurlijk niet, maar de Arabische Liga heeft de terechte eis van Israel dat de Palestijnen het als Joodse staat erkennen afgewezen, met de bekende dooddoeners dat dat ten koste zou gaan van de Arabieren in Israel en het recht op terugkeer van de vluchtelingen. Dat laatste lijkt me een terechte constatering, het eerste is flauwekul en bovendien nogal inconsequent, zo laat Elder of Ziyon zien.

 

RP

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

 

Arab League rejects "Jewish state"

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/09/arab-league-rejects-jewish-state.html

 

 

From Ma'an:

Arab foreign ministers meeting in Cairo on Thursday decided to reject a demand made by Israel, asking Palestinian negotiators recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

In a statement issued after the meeting, the Arab League supported President Mahmoud Abbas' refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Palestinian negotiators have recognized Israel's right to exist, but not as a Jewish state, which officials say would prejudice the right of return for refugees and violate the rights of Israel's non-Jewish residents.

If recognizing Israel as a Jewish state would violate the rights of non-Jews in Israel, then defining "Palestine" as Arab would likewise violate the rights of non-Arabs, and defining it is Islamic would - by their definition - mean that non-Muslims will be discriminated against.

Here are parts of the "Constitution of Palestine" that mentions the word "Arab" or "Islam":

 

ARTICLE 1
Palestine is part of the large Arab World, and the Palestinian people are part of the Arab Nation. Arab Unity is an objective which the Palestinian People shall work to achieve.

ARTICLE 4
Islam is the official religion in Palestine. Respect and sanctity of all other heavenly religions shall be maintained.
The principles of Islamic Shari'a shall be the main source of legislation.
Arabic shall be the official language.

In addition, in five instances, the constitution refers specifically to the "Palestinian Arab people" or the "Arab Palestinian people." For example,

ARTICLE 116
Laws shall be promulgated in the name of the Palestinian Arab People, and shall be published immediately in the official gazette. These laws shall come into force 30 days from the date of their publication unless the laws state otherwise.

It sounds like non-Arabs cannot become "Palestinian" and that any non-Arabs who happen to live in Palestine would be, by definition, in a lower class.

Equal rights only apply to Palestinian Arabs:

 

ARTICLE 9
All Palestinians are equal under the law and judiciary without discrimination because of race, sex, color, religion, political views, or disability.

Since all Palestinians are Arabs by their definition, this means that there would be discrimination against non-Arabs.

Furthermore, since the constitution says that "Respect and sanctity of all other heavenly religions shall be maintained," that means that the Constitution of Palestine is enshrining discrimination against other religions that are not considered "heavenly" by Islam. In other words, Hindus and Buddhists can expect to be treated in a bigoted way should they want to visit or live in any Palestinian Arab state.

Of course, every Arab state's constitution says things that are similar.

The hypocrisy behind the outrage at calling Israel "Jewish" cannot be more blatant.

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/09/arab-league-rejects-jewish-state.html

 

 

Op Fatah TV wordt gezongen over het veroveren van Israel

 

De nieuwste Palestijnse bijdrage aan het vredesproces, is deze videoclip:

 

Band member recites a poem:

"Fight, brother, the flag will never be lowered,
the torches will never die out."
On [Mt.] Carmel (in Israel) and in the [Jordan] Valley,
we are rocks and streams.
In Lod (Israeli city) we are poems, and in Ramle (Israeli city) - grenades.
We, my brother, shall remain the revolution of the fighting nation."

Vocalist sings:

"The Zionists went out from [their] homelands,
compounding damage and enmity.
But the Palestinian revolution awaits [them].
The orchard called us to the [armed] struggle.
We replaced bracelets with weapons.
We attacked the despicable [Zionists].
This invading enemy is on the battlefield.
This is the day of consolation of Jihad.
Pull the trigger.
We shall redeem Jerusalem, Nablus and the country."

[PA TV (Fatah), Sept. 12, 2010]

 

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

 

Source:

PMW Bulletin - Sept. 16, 2010 "Song broadcast on PA TV: Pull the trigger - redeem the country", by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik