| | PMW Bulletin April 24, 2011 PA daily: "Jews, Jews! Your holiday [Passover] is the Holiday of Apes" http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=4924 by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook An article in the official PA daily newspaper claims that Palestinian Christian youth perform a spring march in the streets that includes the chant: "Jews, Jews! Your holiday [Passover] is the Holiday of Apes." (See PMW web site for examples of the Palestinian Authority referring to Jews as "apes and pigs.") He writes that these "meaningful messages" are in response to Israel's security measures in Jerusalem during the holiday of Passover: "For many years the holy city [Jerusalem] has been deliberately closed to Palestinians, under security-related pretexts and for the Jewish festival of Passover." The writer says that the Easter services in Jerusalem have lost their Palestinian flavor because of western Christian pilgrims: "The festivities at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre have begun to assume a western character, because of the massive presence of foreign Christian pilgrims and the limited presence of Palestinians." But the writer insists that in Palestinian Authority cities, the festivities have retained their Palestinian flavor. He describes youth chanting that the Jewish holiday of Passover is the "Holiday of the Apes": "The spring carnival has retained its [Palestinian] flavor in towns such as Bethlehem, Beit Sahour and Ramallah... with the demonstrations of the Scouts, songs, dances, and popular Palestinian hymns about Christian-Islamic unity and internal Christian unity. These hymns carry meaningful messages, in response to the Israeli prohibition [to enter Jerusalem], as seen in the calls of the youth who lead the procession of light, waving swords and not caring if anyone accuses them of anti-Semitism: ... 'Our master, Jesus, the Messiah, the Messiah redeemed us, with his blood he bought us, and today we are joyous while the Jews are sad,' and, 'Jews, Jews! Your holiday is the Holiday of the Apes, while our holiday is the Holiday of the Messiah.'" [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, April 19, 2011]
PMW | King George 59 | Jerusalem | Israel
De tragicomedie van de VN Mensenrechtenraad gaat door. Na het jarenlange lidmaatschap van Libië en Iran zal nu ook Syrië hoogstwaarschijnlijk tot dit gezelschap verlichte landen toetreden, en mag het andere landen de maat nemen over hun (vermeende) mensenrechtenschendingen. Eind mei is de stemming. This year, there's what's called a "clean slate," meaning that four countries were chosen within the Asia group for the four seats. They are India, Indonesia, Philippines, and, yes, Syria. (Syria's candidacy has also been embraced by the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.) Unless more Asian countries now opt to vie for the vacant seats, it could soon be a done deal. Traditionally, when the general vote occurs, the candidate countries selected by their respective regional blocs are automatically endorsed, with perhaps a few dissenting votes, by the larger group. Het Aziatische blok vond Syrië blijkbaar een goede kanidaat, beter natuurlijk dan Israel, een van de weinige landen in de regio met een parlementarie democratie, een werkelijk vrije pers en talloze organisaties die het beleid van de regering zeer kritisch volgen en die kritiek niet onder stoelen of banken steken. Israel wordt nooit voorgedragen, en zal nooit zitting hebben in de raad, simpelweg omdat de Arabische staten dat niet toestaan. Laat dat niet zien dat dat hele systeem van regionale blokken die zelf kandidaat-staten mogen voordragen voor de verschillende gremia, niet werkt? Landen met genoeg connecties, macht en vrienden worden gekozen, niet landen die op het betreffende gebied een bijdrage aan een betere wereld kunnen leveren. RP --------
Code Red: Syria Could Soon Join UN Human Rights Council Posted: 04/24/11 05:40 PM ET http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-harris/code-red-syria-could-soon_b_852976.html No, this isn't a bad joke. The very same Syria that today is mowing down its own people in the streets could well be elected a member of the UN Human Rights Council on May 20th. Here's how it works: The Council is comprised of 47 member states. Each is elected for a three-year term, with one-third of the seats becoming vacant each year. According to the UN General Assembly resolution creating the Council in 2006, Asia is assigned 13 of the 47 seats, with the other four regional blocs divvying up the remaining 34. Four of the 13 Asian seats become vacant now. This year, there's what's called a "clean slate," meaning that four countries were chosen within the Asia group for the four seats. They are India, Indonesia, Philippines, and, yes, Syria. (Syria's candidacy has also been embraced by the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.) Unless more Asian countries now opt to vie for the vacant seats, it could soon be a done deal. Traditionally, when the general vote occurs, the candidate countries selected by their respective regional blocs are automatically endorsed, with perhaps a few dissenting votes, by the larger group. To indicate its willingness to comply with the Council's mission, Syria has formally pledged "its commitment to respect and to support the inalienable nature of all human rights," adding it "would contribute to accomplish the objectives of the Council, and would support the national and international efforts for promotion and protection of human rights for all, without distinction and selectivity or politicization." Don't laugh. The Syrian government expressed this with all due solemnity. Given the abysmal record of some others who've been chosen to serve on the Council, it could be enough to get it elected. Of course, putting Syria on the UN Human Rights Council would make a mockery of the whole exercise. One hardly knows where to begin in documenting Syria's utter and total disregard for human rights. And, incidentally, this long predates the current bloodshed. For starters, the regime has no legitimacy. In 2000, Bashar Assad inherited power from his father, Hafez Assad, who himself was no Jeffersonian democrat nor was he, shall we say, the product of the free will of the people. The ruling elite come from the Alawite community, which comprises just 12 percent of the total population. Open elections in Syria? No. Protection of civil liberties? No. Due process? No. Independent judiciary? No. Emergency rule? Yes. Torture? Yes. Administrative detention? Yes. Censorship? Yes. What's more, Syria not only flouts human rights protections at home, but beyond its borders as well. Damascus houses terrorist groups like Hamas, whose stated aim is the destruction of Israel and the murder of Israelis wherever they may live. Syria, a bosom buddy of Iran, is involved in the trans-shipment of weaponry to Hezbollah from Iran, in flagrant violation of UN Security Council resolutions and with the aim of strengthening a terrorist entity at the expense of the centralized government in Lebanon. Until 2007, when Israel took action, Syria pursued a clandestine nuclear-weapons program in collaboration with North Korea. To what end? It's not hard to guess. Whether it has sought to restart that program remains an open question. What's not in question, however, is Syria's failure to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on inspections. And it was clear to French President Jacques Chirac that Syria had a central hand in the murder of his friend, Rafik Hariri, the former prime minister of Lebanon, and 21 others in Beirut in 2005. But despite this deplorable record, Syria has gotten off quite easy. Bashar Assad was mistakenly seen as a reformer from the get-go by many observers who presumably would rather not have their comments at the time recalled. Because he had spent time in England, was computer savvy, had an attractive wife, and represented a generational shift from his thuggish father, Assad was heralded as ushering in a new era. Less than one year after he took office, Syria was elected to the UN Security Council as a candidate of the Asian group, with 160 out of 177 votes. More recently, an unending procession of Western dignitaries have made their way to Damascus in the misplaced, if stubborn, belief they could draw Assad away from the Iranian orbit, laud internal progress, and encourage closer ties. The visitors have included several notable members of the U.S. Congress. After President Sarkozy took office in 2007, France began to reverse course on the hostile stance towards Syria of President Chirac. Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan embraced the Syrian leader and struck defense and other deals with him. Russia agreed to sell deadly missiles to the Syrian regime. And the U.S. returned its ambassador to Damascus in January, after downgrading bilateral ties in 2005 over the Hariri assassination. Vogue, the fashion magazine, went so far as to feature the Syrian First Lady in its March issue. The spread could not have been more fawning -- or ill-timed. And now, lest there have been any doubts all along, Syria has shown its true colors for the world to see. While uttering empty words about reform, Assad has unleashed the vast power of the state to kill hundreds of his countrymen who dared to peacefully and courageously challenge his rule -- and the end is not in sight. He's tried to keep the media out, but social media can't be stopped as easily, so we've heard loud and clear from opposition groups. The world knows what's happening there. What next? Well, in the case of Libya, after initial hesitation, the international community sprang into action to confront Gaddafi's crimes. The UN Human Rights Council met in special session. It recommended the suspension of Libya's membership -- which itself had been a travesty when it occurred in 2010. The UN General Assembly endorsed the suspension. And, of course, the UN Security Council took important decisions. With Syria, it's still unclear. It could go either way. Within weeks, Syria could be elected a member of the UN Human Rights Council and, despite its own horrendous record, sit imperiously in judgment of others for the next three years. Or, like Libya, it could instead become the target of a special session of the UN Human Rights Council -- and possibly other UN bodies -- for its systematic violations of human rights and possible crimes against humanity. The world should be watching closely. It will reveal a great deal about how the Council works, how regional blocs -- in this case, Asia -- either embrace or reject murderers in their midst, and how individual countries act. Remember that each country has one vote, and those votes will determine the outcome. We can only hope that a clear majority of the Council will get "Syria-ous." For more information, visit ajc.org.
Turkije's president Abdullah Gul legt het nog maar eens uit: de huidige onrust in de Arabische wereld kan alleen tot meer democratie en vrede leiden wanneer het Israelisch-Palestijns conflict wordt opgelost en er een einde komt aan de bezetting. Oftewel: al die miljoenen mensen zijn de straat opgegaan in Egypte, en wagen hun leven momenteel in Syrië, Bahrein en Libië omdat zij willen dat er een einde komt aan de bezetting. Daarom protesteren zij tegen corruptie en tirannie, tegen lage lonen en de macht van de veiligheidsdiensten. Niet omdat zij zelf een beter leven willen, niet omdat ze het zat zijn onder corrupte dictators te leven die de rijkdom van het land inpikken en niet omdat ze willen kunnen zeggen wat ze willen. Al hun aandacht gaat uit naar de onderdrukte Palestijnen en het wrede Israel. RP ---------- A laughable op-ed from Turkey's president Abdullah Gul in yesterday's NYT: THE wave of uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa is of historic significance equal to that of the revolutions of 1848 and 1989 in Europe. The peoples of the region, without exception, revolted not only in the name of universal values but also to regain their long-suppressed national pride and dignity. But whether these uprisings lead to democracy and peace or to tyranny and conflict will depend on forging a lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and a broader Israeli-Arab peace. Really? Even though the Tunisians and Egyptians and Yemenis and Bahrainis and Syrians and Moroccans and Iranians who are protesting are barely saying a word about Israel, the key to their countries turning democratic is based on Israeli policy? How so? The plight of the Palestinians has been a root cause of unrest and conflict in the region and is being used as a pretext for extremism in other corners of the world. Now, this is funny. Arab and Islamic regimes - the ones being protested against - are the ones who have claimed that they cannot reform because of Israel's existence. They are the ones who have used Israel as an excuse to repress their own people. Yet the president of one of those repressive regimes is now pretending that the protesters are the ones pushing the Palestinian Arab agenda - even though one would be hard pressed to find a single sign in the protests that mention Israel or "Palestine." Israel, more than any other country, will need to adapt to the new political climate in the region. More than the Arab and Muslim countries who will have to become democracies? In these times of turmoil, two forces will shape the future: the people's yearning for democracy and the region's changing demographics. Sooner or later, the Middle East will become democratic, and by definition a democratic government should reflect the true wishes of its people. Such a government cannot afford to pursue foreign policies that are perceived as unjust, undignified and humiliating by the public. For years, most governments in the region did not consider the wishes of their people when conducting foreign policy. History has repeatedly shown that a true, fair and lasting peace can only be made between peoples, not ruling elites. In these times of turmoil, and the previous six decades of turmoil, Israel has been trying to make peace with its Arab neighbors. This reflected the wishes of Israel's Jewish majority. I don't quite get how this is considered humiliating or unjust to anyone except the Arab masses who are quick to respond to government-initiated incitement against Israel. They are the ones who scream about "dignity." Just like Gul. Here's where he tries some sleight-of-hand: I call upon the leaders of Israel to approach the peace process with a strategic mindset, rather than resorting to short-sighted tactical maneuvers. This will require seriously considering the Arab League's 2002 peace initiative, which proposed a return to Israel's pre-1967 borders and fully normalized diplomatic relations with Arab states.
Sticking to the unsustainable status quo will only place Israel in greater danger. History has taught us that demographics is the most decisive factor in determining the fate of nations. In the coming 50 years, Arabs will constitute the overwhelming majority of people between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea. The new generation of Arabs is much more conscious of democracy, freedom and national dignity. However, every peace plan that Israel has proposed - and that Palestinian Arabs and the Arab League has rejected - included making a Palestinian Arab state in the vast majority of the territories, thus solving that demographic problem (and also solving the supposedly overriding concern of Palestinian Arabs to have a state!) Why must Israel choose the Arab League plan which does not specifically solve the "refugee" problem and which would involve the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes? Why is the supposed "dignity" of the Arab and Muslim people more important than the lives of so many who legally and voluntarily chose to live in the heartland of their ancestors? More to the point, if Gul is so concerned about democracy and a solution to the "Palestine" problem, why is he not telling Abbas to accept Israel's peace proposals and move on? Wouldn't a Palestinian Arab state on 96% of the territories fulfill every one of the criteria he lists in this op-ed? No, this op-ed is not about peace. It is about forcing Israel to accede to Arab blackmail and to harden the Palestinian Arab rejectionist position towards compromise. (h/t Samson) UPDATE: Meanwhile, Turkey's leadership probably needs to learn other lessons from the upheavals. (h/t Serious Black)
Een genuanceerde reactie op Von der Dunks tirade tegen Wilders. Op Von der Dunk valt volgens mij echter nog wel wat meer af te dingen. Hij vind dat er tegenwoordig een te groot taboe heerst op oorlogsvergelijkingen, maar is dat niet terecht? De vergelijking gaat immers bijna altijd mank, en slaat de discussie dood. Het valt met dat 'taboe' overigens erg mee: niet alleen Von der Dunk, maar velen vergelijken Israel graag met de nazi's (of Gaza met het getto van Warschau etc.), en ook de vergelijking van de PVV met de NSB, of van Wilders met Hitler, wordt vaker gemaakt. En Wilders op zijn beurt vergelijkt de Koran met Mein Kampf en noemt de islam een fascistische ideologie. In discussies over Wilders en de islam of Israel en de Palestijnen vliegen de nazi-vergelijkingen je om de oren. Dat komt de discussie doorgaans niet ten goede, maar Von der Dunk ziet dat als een groot goed. We moeten elkaar en vooral onze tegenstanders immers continu de maat nemen en onze morele superioriteit tonen door ze met het symbool van het absolute kwaad te vergelijken. Alleen dan kan de natie worden behoed voor een nieuwe ramp a la Hitler. Dat juist hierdoor de polarisatie toeneemt en daarmee het vijanddenken, dat mensen en bewegingen continu in een hokje worden gestopt waar ze niet inpassen, dat neemt Von der Dunk graag voor lief. Maar hé, doet dit soort absoluut denken in goed en fout, en superioriteitsgevoelens en de idee dat de natie gered moet worden van het kwaad, niet ergens aan denken? RP ---------- Alarmbellen gingen vaak niet af Meindert Fennema, 23-04-2011 13:00
De vergelijking van hedendaagse verschijnselen met de oorlog is vaak ten onrechte gemaakt. Maar het kwam ook voor dat de alarmbel ten onrechte niet afging. De Arondéuslezing van Thomas von der Dunk krijgt meer aandacht nu ze niet gehouden is. Dat komt door het besluit van de CDA- en VVD-fracties in de Provinciale Staten van Noord-Holland, die in februari nog akkoord gingen met de synopsis van zijn verhaal, maar in april opeens van mening waren dat deze lezing ter nagedachtenis aan Willem Arondéus - in 1943 geëxecuteerd door de Duitsers omdat hij samen met anderen een bomaanslag gepleegd had op het bevolkingsregister van Amsterdam - geen partijpolitiek karakter mocht hebben.
Von der Dunk vergelijkt, niet voor het eerst, de PVV met de NSB. Die vergelijking noemt hij in zijn lezing 'Het nieuwe taboe op de oorlog'. En hij wordt op zijn wenken bediend: het afblazen van de lezing bevestigt zijn gelijk. Het mag niet meer, het is taboe. Waarom eigenlijk? Omdat de PVV nu een belangrijke fractie vormt in de Staten van Noord-Holland. Maar ook omdat de PVV nu deel uitmaakt van een coalitieregering, zo bleek uit de reactie van staatssecretaris Henk Bleker bij Pauw & Witteman. Politieke gemakzucht, noemt Von der Dunk dat in zijn lezing. Misbruik van de Tweede Wereldoorlog zullen PVV-sympathisanten zeggen. Maar is dat zo? Ja en nee.
Discriminatie
Von der Dunk heeft gelijk als hij er op wijst dat de PVV streeft naar discriminatie van een religieuze bevolkingsgroep, zoals dat tijdens de bezetting met Joden gebeurde. Het voorstel een 'kopvoddentaks' in te stellen is maar één van de voorbeelden. Het voorstel van de Noord-Hollandse PVV om vrouwen met een hoofddoek de toegang tot de streekbussen te ontzeggen is een ander.
De verdachtmakingen aan het adres van de rechterlijke macht is een tweede argument van Von der Dunk. Dat argument is veel minder sterk. Geert Wilders wijst er op dat veel rechters D66 stemmen en vaak meer mededogen met de dader hebben dan met zijn slachtoffers. Dat eerste lijkt mij geen verdachtmaking, dat is een feit. Het tweede is een politiek oordeel dat door veel burgers wordt gedeeld. Zijn voorstel om rechters niet meer voor het leven te benoemen gaat ver, te meer daar hij hun herbenoeming koppelt aan de zwaarte van hun straffen. 'Een rechter die alleen maar taakstraffen uitdeelt gaat maar bij het Riagg werken', zei Wilders tegen Joost Eerdmans. Maar dat doet me meer denken aan Sarah Palin dan aan Anton Mussert. In veel Amerikaanse staten worden rechters gekozen, niet benoemd. Er is in de VS een levendig debat over life time appointments van de federale rechters. Niemand brengt de tegenstanders daarvan in verband met het fascisme.
Nihil
Nog minder sterk is het argument van de 'sterke leider'. Ik kan mij niet herinneren dat de machtswisseling in de PvdA van Bos naar Cohen - waarop de invloed van de partijleden nihil was - ooit in verband gebracht werd met het Führerprinzip. En dat is maar goed ook.
Maar de lezing die nooit gehouden is, heeft een centrale stelling die ik onderschrijf. 'Jarenlang', schrijft Von der Dunk, 'werd te pas en te onpas, zodra zich een maatschappelijk verschijnsel voordeed dat politiek abject werd bevonden bijna volautomatisch naar De Oorlog verwezen.' En nu er werkelijk reden is om te waarschuwen, durft men het niet meer te doen. 'Alarmbellen gaan niet meer branden omdat ze in het verleden te vaak bij vals alarm zijn afgegaan.'
Toevoegen
Graag zou ik hier aan toevoegen dat er in het verleden ook alarmbellen níet afgegaan zijn. Dat gold met name voor het antisemitisme in de voetbalstadions, waar de Amsterdamse burgemeesters - van Van Thijn tot Cohen - nooit tegen zijn opgetreden. De vrees de voetbalfans voor het hoofd te stoten, was groter dan de antifascistische principes. PVV'er Richard de Mos heeft onlangs in de Haagse gemeenteraad gezegd dat er tegen antisemitische spreekkoren van ADO-supporters keihard moet worden opgetreden. Als gevolg daarvan wordt hij nu met de dood bedreigd. Maar dát staat weer niet in de lezing van Von der Dunk.
De ideologische consensus in onze samenleving - die in de Koude Oorlog zo sterk was - is afgenomen. De herdenking van de Kristallnacht in Amsterdam werd in 2002 stopgezet nadat het organiserende comité Nederland Bekent Kleur in diskrediet was geraakt. Tijdens de herdenking in 2000 begon Abdou Menebhi, een van de oprichters van NBK en op dat moment voorzitter van de Stedelijke Marokkaanse Raad, tegen alle afspraken in over het schenden van de rechten van Palestijnen door Israël.
Ik vrees dat de Arondéuslezing volgend jaar niet meer wordt gehouden.
Waarom reageert het Westen zo lauw op het brute geweld dat het Syrische regime gebruikt tegen zijn eigen burgers? Barry Rubin heeft het antwoord blijkbaar ook niet, want hij komt niet verder dan dit te veroordelen. Rubin bekritiseert Obama graag, en hekelt de rol die Amerika nu in het Midden-Oosten speelt. Te kritisch naar Israel, te mild naar de Arabische staten en met te weinig oog voor de islamisten en hun invloed. Allemaal goed en wel, maar de vraag blijft: waarom treedt het Westen wel op tegen Gadhaffi en niet tegen Assad? Het antwoord dat daarop meestal wordt gegeven is dat men Syrië ondanks haar steun voor Hezbollah, Hamas en haar bondgenootschap met Iran toch als een soort strategische partner ziet, een land dat voor stabiliteit zorgt en waar je afspraken mee kan maken. Zelfs Israel zou liever Assad aan de macht zien dan een revolutie en het risico dat extremisten aan de macht komen. Maar wat hebben we precies te vrezen en wat bood Assad ons allemaal? Assad heeft geprobeerd een kernwapen te maken (dit werd in september 2007 door Israel verijdeld), hij steunt zoals gezegd diverse terroristische groeperingen, Syrië heeft een bijzonder negatieve invloed in Libanon en zit hoogstwaarschijnlijk achter de moord op Hariri in 2005, dissidenten en iedereen die zijn mond open durft te doen lopen het risico te worden opgepakt en gemarteld, etc. etc. Hoeveel erger kan het? Waar is Israel of het Westen bang voor? Dat een nieuwe leider gaat aanvallen? Assad is inderdaad verstandig genoeg om Israel niet aan te vallen, maar ik zie niet hoe hij verder voor stabiliteit zorgt, eerder het tegendeel. Maar waarom valt het Westen Gadhaffi wel aan, en Assad niet? Wellicht omdat Libië toch wat dichterbij is, en de Libische vluchtelingen via Lampedusa op onze deur kloppen. Er zit in Libië ook meer olie in de grond. En het Westen had met Gadhaffi ook nog een appeltje te schillen, al werden hem eerder zijn zonden wel makkelijk vergeven. Overigens greep men pas in toen Gadhaffi met bombarderen begon en de opstandelingen om een no-fly zone smeekten. RP --------- The Big Historic Event Today: Syria's Biggest Crisis in 40 Years http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/04/big-historic-event-today.html Posted: 23 Apr 2011 03:50 AM PDT By Barry Rubin
Today Syria has entered its biggest internal crisis since 1970. The regime has come out to crush the insurrection. Either it will succeed by killing many people or the insurrection will build into a real potential revolution.
And the Western states are doing...precisely zero.
One Syrian expert friend responded: "Less than zero."
Here's White House press secretary Jay Carney on Air Force 1, April 22:
"As we have consistently throughout this period, we deplore the use of violence and we're very concerned about what we've -- the reports we've seen from Syria. We are monitoring it very closely; call on the Syrian government to cease and desist from the use of violence against peaceful protestors; call on all sides to cease and desist from the use of violence; and also call on the Syrian government to follow through on its promises and take action towards the kind of concrete reform that they promised."
That's fair and evenhanded: They are monitoring closely; both sides must cease their violence; and Syria's dictatorship must end the state of emergency. Sort of sounds like insisting the revolution stop without changing anything.
What happened to: Mubarak must go now! Yesterday! Qadhafi must go or else! Or even condemning Israel at every opportunity that involves even the claim of the mistreatment of one Palestinian?
Oh, right, Bashar al-Assad is just an anti-American dictator who is even now a leading sponsor of terrorism; ally of Iran; host and facilitator for terrorists killing Americans in Iraq; just caught trying to get nuclear weapons secretly; aggressor against Lebanon; torturer of political prisoners; and so on. It isn't as if he were a real problem for U.S. interests!
Note: After this article was written President Obama issued a tougher statement.
It begins:
"The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms the use of force by the Syrian government against demonstrators. This outrageous use of violence to quell protests must come to an end now. We regret the loss of life and our thoughts are with the families and loved ones of the victims, and with the Syrian people in this challenging time."
It continues saying that Assad has not fulfilled his promises of reform and that the Syrian people are rightfully demanding human rights and ends: "We call on President Assad to change course now, and heed the calls of his own people."
But once again: Or what are you going to do about it?
Now compare today with what Obama said about Iran two years ago when it was arresting thousands of demonstrators and shooting unarmed protesters:
June 2009: "I would suggest Mr. Ahmadinejad think carefully about the obligations he owes to his own people."
April 2011: "We call on President Assad to change course now, and heed the calls of his own people."
Ahmadinejad didn't think then; Assad won't change or heed now; Obama didn't do anything then and won't do anything now.
Dit hoeft natuurlijk niet te verbazen, maar laat weer duidelijk zien dat niet alleen (of vooral) Israel voorwaarden stelt en moeilijk doet, maar ook de Palestijnen. Een vredesplan waarbij alle Palestijnse vluchtelingen en vooral hun miljoenen nakomelingen mogen 'terug'keren naar Israel, is geen vredesplan maar een plan om Israel op te heffen en een einde te maken aan Joodse zelfbeschikking. Het betekent ook dat de erkenning van Israels bestaansrecht door de Palestijnse Autoriteit niet veel voorstelt, maar dat wisten we natuurlijk al. RP -------- Hamas, PA reject new peace plan without right of return Sha'ath: Right of return is basic right Palestinians couldn't give up; Hamas says strongly opposed to new US peace initiative. The Palestinian Authority said that it would reject any peace initiative that requires Palestinians to relinquish the right of return.
Nabil Sha'ath, member of the PA negotiating team, said that the right of return was a basic right, which the Palestinians couldn't give up.
"We will reject any American peace plan that calls on us to give up one of our basic rights – the right of return for refugees," Sha'ath, a former PA foreign minister who played a major role in the signing of the Oslo Accords, said.
Sha'ath noted that the Oslo Accords that were signed between Israel and the PLO cal for holding discussions on major issues like Jerusalem, refugees, borders and security.
"How can Washington plan for such a solution?" he asked, referring to the report about US President Barack Obama's new peace initiative. "There are no contacts between Washington and the PA on this issue."
Sha'ath claimed that members of the Quartet – the US, EU, UN and Russia – were recently forced to postpone their meeting to discuss the status of the Middle East peace talks because Washington was opposed to a pro-Palestinian statement that they were planning to issue.
The Hamas government in the Gaza Strip described the Obama initiative as an "alarm bell that jeopardizes the right of return."
Calling on the Arab and Islamic people to support the Palestinians' right of return, Hamas said it was strongly opposed to the new initiative.
"The right of return is a legitimate and sacred right and no one could give it up," Hamas stressed.
Het is een bekend probleem, maar een oplossing is nog niet in zicht. Een groot deel van de ultra-orthodoxen werkt niet en dient niet in het leger, en wijdt zich de hele dag aan de studie van de Thora. Omdat het aantal ultraorthodoxen steeds verder toeneemt, moeten steeds minder mensen hun lasten opbrengen. Israel is geen rijk land en de lonen liggen er een stuk lager dan hier. Mensen werken er hard en komen dan nog vaak maar net rond. Veel rek zit er dus wat dat betreft niet in. Het wordt dan ook tijd dat aan de ultraortodoxen dezelfde eisen worden gesteld als aan ieder ander, namelijk dat men moet werken voor zijn brood, en de staat alleen bijspringt als het echt nodig is. Maar dat is onmogelijk zolang de ultraorthodoxe partijen nodig zijn om de coalitie in stand te houden. Misschien moeten Netanjahoe en Livni hun animositeit en rivaliteit en trots eens opzij zetten en gaan handelen in het belang van de staat in plaats van in het partijpolitieke belang. RP --------
Jobless haredim weigh on economy In 20 years, ultra-Orthodox will make up 17% of Israel's workforce. According to some analysts, economy will suffer enormously if things don't change. 'They are a real danger to Israel' Reuters Published: | 04.20.11, 15:41 | Meir Gross is a Jewish ultra-Orthodox father of five who does not work. Despite warnings that Israel's economy may be threatened by his fast growing, often unemployed, community, he does not want a job. Gross advocates a pious existence geared to study. He spends nearly his entire day learning Torah (Jewish law), which he says is the most important edict bestowed on the Jewish man, and it cannot be combined with a job. "Torah study demands utter and complete devotion. We're not interested in making money or in material luxury. We are content with very little and our true joy, and highest duty, is learning," Gross said. Ultra-Orthodox Jews, or "haredim", are a devout tight-knit community who make up 8-10% of Israel's 7.7 million population, with eight children per family on average. Many are supported by the State and live well below the poverty line. A Bank of Israel report in March said about 60% of haredi men don't work. But in 20 years the haredim will make up 17% of the work force and many analysts say Israel's economy will suffer enormously if things do not change. "They are a real danger to Israel," said Omer Moav, economics professor at the University of London and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. "If we go bankrupt it's the end of the story for us. Our strong army rests on a strong economy." The haredim traditionally keep to their own towns or neighborhoods, where men walk the streets in traditional black garb and broad hats while women wear long dark dresses and cover their hair with hats, scarves or wigs. While some haredim choose not to work, others say they would like to earn their keep, but face too many cultural hurdles searching for jobs among Israel's secular majority. Moshe Gafni, an ultra-Orthodox lawmaker and head of the Knesset's Finance Committee, says the government must do more. "The haredi man is always the last candidate to get the job. Employers are sure they're bad workers. What we need is affirmative action," he said. Analysts say haredi education is a key factor keeping the men back. Haredi schools limit non-religious studies. Math, English, science and technology are sometimes cut out entirely, leaving pupils ill-equipped for a modern labour market. But haredi women are exempt from the demands of religious studies imposed on men, and the Bank of Israel says the past decade has seen "a significant increase" in the employment rate among ultra-Orthodox women, now at almost 60%. One sector taking on more and more haredi women is Israel's booming technology industry, where demand for workers is big. Matrix Global, a division of the Matrix subsidiary of Israeli IT firm Formula Systems, is based in Modiin Illit, a West Bank settlement dubbed the "future haredi city". Matrix Global started hiring ultra-Orthodox women in 2004 and now employs 750, many with degrees in computer science or engineering, as software developers and testers. Religious conventions such as not shaking a man's hand or sitting alone in a room with him, not driving and keeping strict Kashrut (Jewish dietary laws), can make it difficult for a haredi woman to fit in, and Matrix tries to accommodate. The company's Chief Operating Officer Libby Affen, a haredi woman herself, lists flexible work hours, proximity to the home, bus shuttles, close mentoring and guidance of a rabbi who explains religious rules to the customers "on the outside". "We're not trying to change the women or their beliefs, but to understand both cultures and bridge between them," she said. Project manager Sarit, 35, a haredi mother of five, said she could not have developed a career anywhere else. "There should be more places like this in more sectors. There's no shortage of haredi women who want work," said Sarit, who declined to give a surname. But economist Omer Moav said such trends were not enough. "As long as the government won't make a dramatic change, things will get worse. One cannot reach an agreed upon solution, it has to be forced upon the haredim," he said. Successive Israeli coalition governments have relied for their survival on the support of ultra-religious parties who in turn have exacted a price for their backing, most often in the form of state benefits for their community. Resentment in the Jewish state toward haredim over their state benefits, seen as discriminatory and funded by the tax money of Israel's working majority, is often overshadowed in public debate by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Professor Dan Ben-David, an economist at Tel-Aviv University and head of the Taub Centre for Social Policy Research, has been studying for years the extent of Haredi benefits, such as child allowances, housing subsidies and scholarships. "The true amount is concealed, veiled in misleading budget definitions. We are shocked each time we get an inkling of its magnitude, but it has to be huge if it allows one of the highest unemployment rates in the Western world," Ben-David said. A spokeswoman for Israel's Finance Ministry said finding such data was "problematic", adding that the government in 2010 spent over NIS 350 million ($88 million) on projects aimed at getting haredim into the labor market. Success for such projects would have a great impact, said Ben-David. "If we were to increase employment to American rates, then we would add NIS 85 billion ($25 billion) to the economy." But Meir Gross sees his lack of a job in a different light. "My answer is not in facts and figures. We believe the world will end if it is left with no Torah study, even for a moment."
Voor alle leden van de VN "Mensenrechtenraad" zou toch al lang duidelijk moeten zijn dat ze in een Orwelliaanse club terecht zijn gekomen, zoiets als de "United Civilians for Peace" (goddank op sterven na dood nu de subsidiestekker eruit is getrokken), die wellicht united zijn, maar noch civilians noch vredesactivisten, maar een eenzijdig en hypocriet actieclubje tegen Israel; zoiets als de Mensenrechtenraad dus. Wouter ___________ A very interesting dispatch from AP: Several members of the U.N.'s top human rights body are pressing for an emergency meeting to examine the government crackdowns against popular protests that have swept the Middle East and North Africa, Western diplomats said Wednesday.
The countries, from Latin America, Europe, North America and Asia, are trying to collect 16 signatures necessary to force a special session of the U.N. Human Rights Council next week, the diplomats said.
They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, which was underlined by the innocuous title proposed for the meeting — "Promotion and protection of human rights in the context of recent peaceful protests."
The title was chosen to avoid singling out particular countries, the diplomats said. But they confirmed that Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria would be among the nations whose violent suppression of protests would be on the agenda.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference, whose members carry significant weight in the 47-nation Human Rights Council, said it wouldn't consent to holding such a meeting.
"We think that the events that are taking place do not merit some kind of a special session," said Zamir Akram, Pakistan's ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva.
He accused those advocating a special session of double standards, and said the OIC would use any such meeting to focus on human rights abuses by Israel instead. We already know that the UNHRC is a joke. (Leading UNHRC advisor Jean Ziegler edited a book that likened Libya's dictator Moammar Gaddafi to philosopher Jean Rousseau.) Yet there are those who cling to the idea that it has some relevance; pointing to the very few non-Israeli statements it has made or to the fact that it finally, belatedly kicked Libya out. The UNHRC's actions over the next few days should be the final nail in the coffin of this thoroughly corrupt institution as well as proof positive that the Organization of Islamic States has an agenda that is fundamentally opposed to human rights. And how much more proof do you need that Israel is used as a scapegoat for Muslim human rights abuses than the statement by the Pakistani ambassador to the UN?
Ari Shavit is ontnuchterend en niet erg optimistisch, maar ik denk dat hij wel gelijk heeft. Dit gaat overigens in tegen het bekende cliché dat er steeds minder land voor de Palestijnen overblijft, en de Palestijnen nu blij zouden zijn met wat ze in 1948 afwezen. RP ----------- One last chance for Israel to reaffirm its right to exist This time it is not the chance to end the conflict with the Arabs but to work with the international community to firmly establish the Jewish state's right and ability to exist.By Ari Shavit / Published 01:24 21.04.11 Just like the Palestinians, we never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Time after time, we reject the complex diplomatic proposal that has been placed on the table. Time after time, the next proposal is more difficult than its predecessor. Although time is against us, we recklessly refuse to realize this. We refuse today what we will ask for tomorrow and what will cause us regret the day after tomorrow. In 1987, Israel did not move ahead on a peace agreement that might have have been signed with King Hussein. In 1991, Israel did not reach an autonomy agreement that it might have been able to reach with the Palestinian leadership in the territories. In 1993, Israel did not demand that mutual recognition between it and the Palestinian Liberation Organization be immediately turned into a final-status agreement. In 1995, Israel did not try to implement the Abbas-Beilin understandings. In 2002, Israel did not propose its own initiative to counter the Arab peace initiative. In 2005, Israel did not leverage disengagement to determine a defensible border that would divide the land. Because of greed and hesitation, we always did too little too late. Because we tried to have it all, we have attained little. Because we tried to expand our border, we have narrowed it. Deplorable foot-dragging has caused us irreversible diplomatic damage. Make no mistake: It is not at all certain that at any one of the tests over the past quarter-century, Israel had a partner. It is unclear whether King Hussein, Faisal Husseini, Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas and the Arab League were partners for peace. But the moment to test Husseini was the year of the Madrid Conference. The moment to test Arafat was the great summer of Oslo. The moment to test Abbas was the winter after Rabin's assassination. The right time to test the Arab League and the international community would have been right after disengagement. Israel did not act at the right time and the right place to put its enemies and allies to the true test. The outcome is an avalanche. The more time that passes, the more the Jewish national movement retreats and the stronger the Palestinian national movement becomes. International support for Zionism has eroded while Israel's security and demographic situation grows worse. What Israel could have gotten from Jordan we are unlikely to get from the PLO and will not be able to get from Hamas. What we could have gotten from Clinton, it is doubtful we can get from Obama and impossible to get from his successors. What we could have gotten from the international community in exchange for a major withdrawal in 1990, in 2000 and in 2005, we cannot get now. The slope is not only slippery, it is also steep. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should understand the process well. The statesman who was once a Greater Land of Israel man now has the views of one of Labor's early predecessors, Ahdut Ha'avoda. His fondest dream is the Allon Plan to partition the West Bank. His red lines are Rabin's lines. What deputy foreign minister Netanyahu rejected point-blank in 1991, Prime Minister Netanyahu is enthusiastically prepared to adopt in 2011. But even during his two years in leadership, Netanyahu has continued to stall and stall - and stall. He did not produce a daring diplomatic plan following his Bar-Ilan speech. He did not propose the establishment of a demilitarized and limited Palestinian state last summer. He allowed Obama, Abbas and time to wreak havoc on him. He brought Israel to a point in which time, which is working against it, could be its undoing. The opportunity of the summer of 2011 differs from all previous ones. This time, it is not a chance to make peace, but to avoid defeat; not the chance to end the conflict with the Arabs but to work with the international community to firmly establish the Jewish state's right and ability to exist. But to implement even this modest opportunity, we will have to pay. It must be made clear that Israel will not rule over another people, and that under the right conditions and at the right time, Israel will withdraw to adjusted 1967 borders. The payment required is costly and painful. For Prime Minister Netanyahu, the chance of the summer of 2011 is the last chance.
Opzienbarend dat het Rode Kruis nu toegeeft dat er geen humanitaire crisis in de Gazastrook is. De Gazavloot van vorig jaar mei was in zekere zin succesvol, daar de hierbij gepaard gaande internationale kritiek Israel noopte om de blokkade van Gaza te verlichten, die voorheen alleen essentiële levensmiddelen en medicijnen doorliet. Wel staat men op controle van wat de strook in en uit gaat, en dat is een doorn in het oog van radikale anti-Israel activisten als Rob Groenhuijzen, die Hamas vrij baan willen geven om zich tegen Israel te bewapenen. Een vredelievend regime dat Israel niet wil vernietigen en niet haar buren met raketten en mortieren bestookt, zou de oplossing zijn voor het isolement en de economische stagnatie die de strook nu in haar greep houdt, maar over de Hamas terreur naar de eigen bevolking en naar haar buren hoor je de solidaire 'vredesactivisten' van "Free Gaza" en ISM niet. Nee, de onlangs door islamisten vermoorde Italiaanse "vredes"activist Vittorio Arrigoni ging vrolijk op de foto met Hamas premier Haniyeh, en vele activisten voor hem. Wouter _____________ Red Cross official: There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza The Red Cross is an international organization founded in 1863. It promotes laws that protect the victims of war and provides humanitarian aid to people living in conflict zones. IDF Spokesperson Mathilde Redmatn, deputy director of the Red Cross is Gaza, says her organization's repeated requests to monitor Gilad Shalit's condition have been refused by Hamas
Rotem Caro Weizman
Mathilde Redmatn is the deputy director of the Red Cross in the Gaza Strip. Redmatn has had the opportunity to see with her eyes what most of us only see on television screens. On previous assignments, Redmatn has lived in Congo and Colombia. Her activities in Gaza are completely different, she says.
"Of course the work is different everywhere, but here the fabric of life is problematic," she says. "There are two peoples, one living under closure and one living under daily rocket fire, which violates international law. Redmatn has a lot to say about problems related to the closure Israel has placed on Gaza but she also talks about the surprising normalcy in one of the most explosive regions of the world that receives extensive media attention.
"There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza," she explains. "If you go to the supermarket, there are products. There are restaurants and a nice beach. The problem is mainly in maintenance of infrastructure and in access to goods, concrete for example. Israel has the legitimate right to protect the civilan population, this right should be balanced with the rights of 1.5 million people living in the Gaza Strip. Despite the easing of the closure and the partial lifting of export bans in the wake of the flotilla incident, continued restrictions on the movement of people and difficulties in importing building materials hampered sustainable economic recovery and dashed any hope of leading a normal and dignified life". The Red Cross is an international organization founded in 1863. It promotes laws that protect the victims of war and provides humanitarian aid to people living in conflict zones. Red Cross representatives have worked in Gaza since 1967. Their goal, says Redmatn, is twofold. "We are documenting human rights violations according to international law and we speak with relevant parties on how to take care of the issue," Redmatn says. "We are talking about captives , soldiers, the wounded, and in fact anyone defined by the Geneva Convention. Additionally, in the area of humanitarian assistance, we are mainly engaged in the areas of water and sanitation. We are talking about a highly dense population. Most of the infrastructure cannot be improved due to the closure so we try to improve the situation with existing tools. One example of this is a factory we helped establish in order to clean sewage water that spills into the sea." The Marmara, Hamas and the Arab world It is important to remember that the Red Cross is not a political organization by definition. It operates through reports and two-sided dialogue, without expressing its own positions, maintaining complete neutrality. "Our goal is not to negotiate peace, but to ensure the well-being of the civilian population," Redmatn says. "We understand and recognize Israel's right to security but it needs to maintain the balance between that and the right of Palestinians living in Gaza to a living and to proper medical care. Of course this is also the responsibility of Hamas to its citizens and therefore we also have relations with them." The Red Cross played a role in the Gaza flotilla incident last year. "We offered our assistance to Israeli authorities in regards to people who were arrested who were from countries without diplomatic relations with Israel," Redmatn says. On the question of whether the flotilla was peaceful, she answers neutrally "this is a matter we discuss with the responsible parties." According to her, the flotilla led to changes in Israeli policy on Gaza but those changes are not yet complete. "More goods enter, but there is still room for improvement" in regards to exports and the passage of people, she says.
A clear goal, but is it possible in light of the current threat? The subject, Redmatn says, is sensitive. "Rocket fire from the Gaza Strip is against international law because it is directed at civilians," she says. "We conduct confidential or bilateral dialouge with Hamas on the matter. As time passes, the dialogue also develops." On recent events in the Arab world, Redmatn says: "The new wind blowing in the Arab world doesn't change the current activities of the Red Cross in the Gaza Strip. It's still too early to tell what will happen and how needs will change. In any case, we will respond quickly to changes and we will see what the future holds." "We will continue to ask to monitor Gilad Shalit but we do not have the capability to force anything on Hamas" Operating in the Gaza Strip requires the Red Cross to work on an ongoing basis with the IDF. "The relationship with the IDF has developed over the years," Redmatn says. "The army understands our mandate. We are in daily contact with each other to coordinate the entry of goods into Gaza and the entry and exit of people, sometimes our personnel and sometimes patients who are going to Israel to receive medical care. The second matter still needs improvement as the time required to cross the border is still long. We hope to augment the medical equipment in Gaza itself in order to reduce the number of people who need to go outside [of Gaza]." These days, she says, the organization has the goal of strengthening the relationship with IDF soldiers. "Not everyone understands what we are doing," she says. "Therefore, we talk about our work to soldiers who serve at the Erez crossing. The intention is to expand this to the entire area around Gaza." But working with the IDF does not only regard the civilian population living in Gaza; it also touches on captive IDF soldier Gilad Shalit. Repeated requests by the Red Cross to monitor Shalit's condition have so far been met with persistent refusal by Hamas.
"When a person's freedom is taken away, he deserves at least contact with his family," Redmatn says. "We will continue to ask but we do not have the capability to force anything on Hamas. Hamas' refusal is based on security reasons. Hamas is afraid of the IDF's advanced technological capabilities and believes that allowing contact will lead to the location of Gilad." Redmatn called on all sides to abide by international law. "It is important that organizations and countries respect international law," she said. "Only thus will the situation get better."
Uit WikiLeaks blijkt dat er meer burgerdoden zijn gevallen in Irak en Afghanistan dan doorgaans wordt toegegeven door de coalitie. Dershowitz betoogt dat Israel daar gunstig tegen afsteekt in de Gaza Oorlog: hoewel de meeste media berichtten dat tweederde van de doden destijds burgers waren, waren de meesten in werkelijkheid Hamasstrijders en andere terroristen. Ook de honderden Hamas politie recruten die Israel op de eerste dag bombardeerde werden echt niet opgeleid om het verkeer te regelen... Wouter ____________ A book about Wiki Leaks recently published in England by editors of The Guardian, sheds an entirely new light on the Goldstone report. Richard Goldstone has recently reconsidered his report's central conclusion, namely that Israeli political and military leaders specifically intended to kill innocent Palestinian civilians. But even before Goldstone's reconsideration, many objective readers of the report could not find any hard evidence to support that unlikely conclusion, for an obvious reason: No such evidence is cited in the body of the report. The best those who wrote the report could come up with was an inference that since so many civilians were killed, that result must have been intended. Recently a leader of Hamas in Gaza acknowledged—indeed boasted—that most of the Palestinians killed during Operation Cast Lead were Hamas fighters. The number of innocent civilians killed (depending on how one defines "innocent" and "civilian" in a war fought by people who are terrorists by night and civilians by day) now appears to be about 500-600. The number of combatants killed now appears to be in excess of 700. In other words, the ratio of combatants to civilians appears to be that slightly more combatants than civilians were killed. Even one civilian death is too many but such deaths are inevitable when combatants hide among civilians, fire rockets from civilian areas and use civilians as human shields—as Hamas routinely does. The Goldstone commission adamantly refused to accept testimony that would have shown that the Israeli army took greater care to reduce civilian deaths than any other armed forces fighting comparable wars. For example, they refused to hear the proffered testimony Colonel Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan and a recognized expert on asymmetric warfare, who would have testified that: "[F]rom my knowledge of the IDF and from the extent to which I have been following the current operation, I don't think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza. The recently published book about Wiki Leaks strongly confirms Colonel Kemp's assessment. The Guardian summarized one Wiki Leaks disclosure about Afghanistan as follows: "We today learn of nearly 150 incidents in which coalition forces, including British troops, have killed or injured civilians, most of which have never been reported…." And another: "The logs disclosed a detailed incident-by-incident record of at least 66,081 violent deaths of civilians in Iraq since the invasion. This figure, dismaying in itself, was nevertheless only a statistical starting point. It is far too low. The database begins a year late in 2004, omitting the high casualties of the direct 2003 invasion period itself, and ends on 31 December 2009. Furthermore, the US figures are plainly unreliable in respect of the most sensitive issue—civilian deaths directly caused by their own military activities. For example, the town of Falluja was the site of two major urban battles in 2004, which reduced the place to near-rubble. Yet no civilian deaths whatever are recorded by the army loggers, apparently on the grounds that they had previously ordered all the inhabitants to leave. Monitors from the unofficial Iraq Body Count group, on the other hand, managed to identify more than 1,200 civilians who died during the Falluja fighting." In another incident, not the subject of a Wiki Leak disclosure, German forces in Afghanistan called in an air strike against two fuel tankers captured by Taliban insurgents. Between 70 and 100 civilians, including 24 children, were killed. There was an immediate attempt by German authorities to cover up the civilian deaths, but ultimately they were revealed and nominal compensation was paid. As to the investigation of alleged war crimes, the Wiki Leaks disclosures show that: "US authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and even murder by Iraqi police and soldiers whose conduct appears to be systematic and normally unpunished…The numerous reports of detainee abuse, often supported by medical evidence, describe prisoners shackled, blindfolded and hung by wrists or ankles, and subjected to whipping, punching, kicking or electric shocks. Six reports end with a detainee's apparent death….[T]he logs reveal that the coalition has a formal policy of ignoring torture allegations. They record "no investigation is necessary" and simply pass reports to the same Iraqi units implicated in the violence." No "Goldstone Commissions" have ever been appointed to investigate the far greater number and proportion of civilian deaths caused by British, German and U.S. military actions—and the frequent lack of credible investigators. Whenever efforts are made to put Israel's actions in a comparative context with other democracies, demonizers of Israel, who always impose a double standard on the Jewish state, respond by arguing "we're talking about Israel now; don't change the subject by talking about other democracies." That reminds me of a famous story about Harvard's notoriously anti-Semitic president, A. Lawrence Lowell, near the beginning of the 20th Century. In an effort to defend his decision to impose an anti-Jewish quota, he said, "Jews cheat." A distinguished Harvard alumnus, Judge Learned Hand, wrote President Lowell a letter saying that "Protestants also cheat," to which Lowell responded, "you're changing the subject; we're talking about Jews now." You can't just talk about Jews, or about the Jewish state when making accusations of war crimes or violation of international law. Comparison is everything, especially since international humanitarian law is expressly based on how democratic nations customarily behave in comparable situations. According to the materials disclosed by Wikileaks, Israel shines in comparison to other democracies. It has a significantly better ratio of combatant to civilian deaths; it takes greater steps to avoid such casualties, and it does a better job investigating negligent and criminal behavior on the part of its soldiers. Moreover, it is seeking to protect its own civilians directly from ongoing cross-border rocket attacks and other terrorist acts, whereas the other democracies are fighting wars of choice many miles from its civilian areas. This is not to suggest the need for "Goldstone Reports" against Great Britain and Germany and the United States. It is to demand that a single standard be applied to all democracies. ** Alan Dershowitz is serving as an American legal consultant to Julian Assange's and Wiki Leaks British lawyers.
Bronfman is een rijke Canadees-Joodse ondernemer en philantroop, en was decennialang voorzitter van het World Jewish Congress en betrokken bij diverse andere Joodse organisaties; kortom, een boegbeeld van de verguisde 'Joodse lobby' die kritiekloos alles wat Israel doet goedpraat, volgens ciritici dan. Aan zijn open en kritische blik zouden de drammers van EAJG een voorbeeld kunnen nemen... Wouter ______________ Published 01:25 18.04.11 Latest update 01:25 18.04.11 Supporting Israel means questioning its policies When we cease to question, we cease to hope. We must believe that Israel is strong enough, and capable, to be held accountable, and that it is possible for it to become a better place.By Edgar M. Bronfman Last month, I met with a man who impressed me as none other has over the last 10 years. His name is David Grossman, and he was in New York to receive the National Jewish Book Award for his magnificent novel "To the End of the Land." Grossman, whose talent is enormous, has been fighting for peace in his country for 30 years. As we came to the end of our discussion we sat as two Jews - one from North America and one from Israel - who deeply care about our mutual fate as part of the Jewish people. He looked me in the eye and said that it was important for me to openly express my ideas about Israeli policies, and that it is vital for others who question to do the same. Grossman's comment resonated with me because Jews are a people of questioners. We emphatically question and discuss. That very Jewish form of engagement, however, is often seen as a threat rather than an asset when it comes to public discussions and criticism of Israel. Yet, as Jews, we show that we care and are connected to each other by rigorous inquiry, not blind advocacy. Accordingly, I feel compelled to call upon Israel to redouble its efforts to bring about a two-state solution, especially as we enter spring and witness the Arab world in the midst of revolution and the possibility - however remote - of a blossoming democracy in Egypt. This week, we also celebrate Passover, that great celebration of freedom. The Pesach Haggadah also reflects the Talmudic injunction to ask questions. As we come upon Passover, and the Seder meal, I am reminded of the example of the four children. They are all held up as illustrations of how to ask questions, or our inability to do so, and I have come to see their legacies as a great lesson. One is wise, one wicked, one simple and one does not know how to ask, but each of them - rebelling, agreeable, silent or bewildered - participates in the act of questioning. When I think of the four children, I am keenly aware of the responsibility - the necessity - of asking questions to continue participating in the narrative of the Jewish people. To remove yourself from the story of Israel, as the wicked child does during the Passover Seder, is the only heresy. Exploring Israel's meaning to you, as an American and as a Jew, is to firmly lock yourself onto the chain of thousands of years of Jewish history, and also claim your legacy as an American who is blessed to live in a land of freedom. Let me be clear: I do not criticize Israel because I wish to separate myself from it. I speak up because I am a committed Zionist who loves Israel. I want it to be a country which lives up to its greatest potential, and I see its current policies on settlements and Palestinian occupation as a grave error, destructive to the heart and soul of a great Jewish country. To believe that Israel is strong enough, and capable, to be held accountable, and that it is possible for it to become a better place. It is an affirmation of strength and a reminder that Israel must not oppress others as the Egyptians did, but aid them in their emancipation. "We are without confidence in what we are doing and where we are heading, what our national purpose is," Grossman lamented to me. "All that is evaporating from us, because of the harshness of the conflict, because of the despair that we are in." When we cease to question, we cease to hope. Do not surrender your freedom so easily - do not give in to despair. Remind yourself this Pesach that you are free to question, and by doing so you reaffirm possibility.
Menachim Begin zag er geen been in om het Fidela regime in Argentinië heimelijk te steunen tijdens de Falkland oorlog tegen Groot-Brittannië, volgens onderstaand artikel. Het komt meer over als een persoonlijke vendetta tegen de Britten dan als een premier die zijn landsbelang voorop stelt. Begin was, naast Shamir, de meeste rechtse premier die Israel gehad heeft; ironisch dat hij tevens de eerste was die een vredesakkoord met een Arabisch buurland sloot, en daarmee zelfs een Nobelprijs voor de Vrede toegekend kreeg. Wouter ______________
Daily Telegraph 21/4/2011
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/8463934/Israel-supplied-arms-to-Argentina-during-Falklands-War.html
Israel 'supplied arms to Argentina during Falklands War' Israel secretly supplied arms and equipment to Argentina during the Falklands War due to Prime Minister Menachem Begin's personal hatred of the British, a new book discloses.
By Robin Yapp, Sao Paulo 9:00PM BST 20 Apr 2011 Air to air missiles, missile radar alert systems, fuel tanks for fighter bombers and gas masks were dispatched from Israel apparently destined for Peru but were then transported on to Argentina, it claims. As the British Task Force sent to reclaim the islands after the 1982 Argentine invasion of the Falklands began to get the upper hand, Argentina's ruling military junta was left with few choices from which to source replacements for equipment lost in war. But according to 'Operation Israel: the rearming of Argentina during the dictatorship (1976/1983)' the junta found that Begin was willing to strike an agreement. Interviews conducted by the author of the book, the Argentine journalist Hernan Dobry, reveal that Begin saw the deals as a form of revenge for the hanging of a personal friend, Dov Gruner, by the British Mandatory Authorities in Palestine in 1947. After the Argentine Air Force contacted Isrex, the Israeli defence company, a meeting was arranged between representatives of the company and Begin. Israel Lotersztain, a salesman for Isrex Argentina, said Begin interrupted the Isrex officials as they tried to explain the situation, saying: "You've come to talk badly about the British. Is this going to be used to kill the English? Kadima (go ahead). "Dov [Gruner] up there is going to be happy with the decision. Obviously, it must be all done perfectly." Gruner was sentenced to death for his part in an attack on a police station by Irgun, the Zionist underground paramilitary movement which Begin commanded before the state of Israel was established. As he awaited hanging, he wrote a letter to Begin, thanking him for his support and emphasising his belief in Irgun. "He [Begin] hated the English above all; everyone had forgotten the British occupation, but not him" according to Lotersztain. His colleague Jaime Weinstein agreed, saying: "He did all that was possible to help Argentina, selling her weapons during the Malvinas [the Argentine name for the Falklands] conflict." Israel needed a third party to help with the deal so that the British would not know that it was helping Argentina and this is where Peru, despite the fact that it had tried to broker a peace plan which Argentina rejected, came in. Dobry reveals that Fernando Belaunde Therry, the Peruvian president, authorised Israel to transport arms and equipment to Lima and Callao, Peru's main port, before being secretly flown to Buenos Aires aboard Aerolineas Argentinas planes. The Peruvian Air Force signed blank purchase orders, which enabled Argentina to request whatever they needed from Israel. "The task was to support them in everything we could, and there was no problem to sign a purchase order," said a high-ranking Peruvian officer. According to the book, which has been previewed in the Argentine newspaper La Nacion, larger planes than the Peruvian Air Force could provide were needed for some heavier equipment leading to the involvement of a Belgian company using the Luxembourg flag which was approved by Mossad. However, British intelligence services kept track of aircraft landing in Peru and even photographed some of the arrivals. "A newspaper once published a picture showing the loading on to an Aerolineas Argentinas plane and the British ambassador in Israel took the photo to Begin and hell broke out," said Lotersztain. "They were aware of the whole operation to the extent that sometimes when we discussed whether some supplies had arrived we would say, 'let's ask the English'". There were five flights in total from Tel Aviv to Buenos Aires via Lima, loaded with equipment such as gas masks, radar warning systems to prevent fire from enemy missiles, air to air missiles, duvet jackets and spare parts. Additional fuel tanks for fighter bombers supplied by Israel were particularly important for Argentina's war effort as they enabled pilots to fly to the Falklands and return to the Argentine mainland without stopping. Dobry discovered that Israel sent 1,500-litre tanks rather than the standard 1,300-litre models and writes that this meant the British Task Force had to move its fleet further east to prevent further bombings. "The Jewish state was not only willing to supply the government of Leopoldo Fortunato Galtieri in everything it needed but was also proactive in advising and conveying their experiences in combat," said Dobry. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| 
