Antisemitische extremisten van Hizb ut Tahrir 3 juli in Amsterdam bijeen

 

Dit is beangstigend. Ik neem aan dat maar weinig moslims zich tot deze denkbeelden voelen aangetrokken, maar een dergelijke organisatie die tegen onze democratie, vrijheden, burgerrechten etc. is en die, desnoods met geweld, wil omverwerpen, mag niet de ruimte krijgen haar ideeën vrij te verkondigen en zieltjes te winnen. Net als fascistische en racistische organisaties dient zij te worden verboden. In een aantal landen, ook in het Midden-Oosten, is deze beweging al verboden.

 

De wereldwijde Hizb ut Tahrir beweging staat nu onder leiding van de Palestijns-Libanese jihadist Taqiuddin al-Nabhani. De organisatie werd in 1952 opgericht in Jeruzalem. Zij is hoofdzakelijk actief in Westerse landen, voornamelijk in Groot-Brittannië.

Een van de antisemitische uitingen van Hizb ut Tahrir was een in 2000 verspreid foldertje over Joden waarin stond: “Joden zijn lafaards, zij zijn een volk van geld en niet van strijd.” In de tekst beloofde Hizb ut Tahrir dat: “De Joden en hun onteigende land in Palestina, met Allahs hulp en genade, vernietigd zullen worden.”

Maar ze zijn ook tegen vrouwen, homo’s, christenen en ongelovigen.

 

RP

-------

 

Antisemitische extremisten 3 juli in Amsterdam bijeen

http://www.cidi.nl/Nieuwsberichten/Antisemitische-extremisten-in-Amsterdam-bijeen-op-3-juli.html

DO 23-06-2011

 

De 'Arabische lente' is maar de eerste stap naar de vestiging van een Islamitische natie. Dit is de belangrijkste boodschap van de Jihadistische Hizb ut Tahrir-beweging bij haar eerste conferentie in Nederland op het kalifaat. De bijeenkomst is gepland op 3 juli in Congres en Party Centre Rhône, Amsterdam.
"De revolutie in de moslimlanden heeft het westen, maar vooral de oemma (moslimnatie) een waardevolle les geleerd," aldus de aankondiging van het evenement. De sprekers zullen "oproepen dat alle moslims over de wereld zich zoals voorheen verenigen in een staat, met één leider, onder de wetgeving van islam. Enkel dit zal zorgen voor ware verandering."

Hizb ut Tahrir (Partij van Bevrijding in het Arabisch) is een wereldwijde, fundamentalistische en antisemitische beweging die zich tegen democratie en vrouwenrechten verzet, en ernaar streeft om de Sharia (islamitische wetgeving) aan Moslims en niet Moslims te brengen. De organisatie roept ook tot de vernietiging van de staat Israel en de etnische zuivering van het Land van Israel van alle Joden.

Het afgelopen decennium werd de beweging illegaal verklaard in Duitsland en Rusland. In verschillende landen in het Midden Oosten werd de beweging tijdens de jaren 70 verboden.

In Nederland beschrijft de AIVD deze beweging als “radicaal”, “extremistisch”, geneigd tot gewelddadigheid, en de oorsprong van “een aantal terroristische organisaties.” Desondanks is de beweging toegestaan in ons land.
In het rapport ‘Radicale dawa in verandering, de opkomst van islamitisch neoradicalisme in Nederland’ uit 2007 stelt de AIVD: “Hizb ut-Tahrir kan worden aangemerkt als een politieke partij, maar dan niet in de gebruikelijke zin van het woord. De beweging opereert bijzonder heimelijk en kent een cellenstructuur met een bijna militaire hiërarchie.”

Het rapport voegt daaraan toe: “De ideologie van Hizb ut-Tahrir kenmerkt zich door een virulent anti-zionisme, een intense afkeer van seculiere regeringen en ideologieën, het volledig mijden van andersdenkenden en het voorschrijven van een confronterende en sterk polarisende boodschap. Het uiteindelijke doel van Hizb ut-Tahrir is het op redelijk korte termijn vestigen van het islamitische kalifaat. Eventueel willen ze daarvoor geweld gebruiken als dat echt nodig is.”

In Groot-Brittannië, aldus het rapport, “is een aantal terroristische organisaties actief dat voorkomt uit Hizb ut-Tahrir zoals The Saved Sect en al-Muhajiroun.” Ook in Groot-Brittannië en de VS (zoals in andere Westerse landen) is Hizb al Tahrir niet verboden. De beweging heeft honderdduizenden sympathisanten in de hele Soennitische wereld, aldus westerse inlichtingendiensten.

Op de vergadering volgende maand - Khilafah Conferentie 2011 – worden enkele lezingen gehouden, ook door Okay Pala, de feitelijke leider van Hizb ut Tahrir Nederland. In januari 2009, tijdens Israels Operation Cast Lead tegen Hamas, hield Pala een lezing met het motto: “de enige oplossing voor de ellende in Gaza is de wederoprichting van de Islamitische staat Al Khilafa.” 
Deze lezing werd in 2009 georganiseerd door de Al Furqan studentenvereniging aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. De universiteit weigerde deze lezing - die opriep tot de vernietiging van de Joodse staat– een podium te bieden vanwege de beslissing van de organisatoren om daarbij mannen en vrouwen te scheiden.

In mei 2010 lanceerde Hizb ut Tahrir Nederland een campagne tegen de deelneming van moslims aan de verkiezingen voor de Tweede Kamer, die een een “koefer” (heidens) systeem genoemd werd.

De wereldwijde Hizb ut Tahrir beweging staat nu onder leiding van de Palestijns-Libanese jihadist Taqiuddin al-Nabhani. De organisatie werd in 1952 opgericht in Jeruzalem. Zij is hoofdzakelijk actief in Westerse landen, voornamelijk in Groot-Brittannië.

Een van de antisemitische uitingen van Hizb ut Tahrir was een in 2000 verspreid foldertje over Joden waarin stond: “Joden zijn lafaards, zij zijn een volk van geld en niet van strijd.” In de tekst beloofde Hizb ut Tahrir dat: “De Joden en hun onteigende land in Palestina, met Allahs hulp en genade, vernietigd zullen worden.”

Terwijl Hizb ut Tahrir in het Westen betrekkelijk veel vrijheid heeft om zijn standpunten te propageren, wordt de beweging streng aan banden gelegd en vervolgd in de moslimlanden.
Vorig jaar startte een Libanese minister een campagne om de beweging te verbieden. In 2009 heeft Turkije ongeveer 200 Hizb ut Tahrir-activisten gearresteerd en vorige maand begonnen de veiligheiddiensten van Pakistan, Bangladesh, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan een actie tegen Hizb ut Tahrir activisten.

 

Wil Abbas af van uitroepen Palestijnse staat?

 

Abu Toameh lijkt hier wat optimistisch, want ik heb niet direct de indruk dat Abbas het plan om eenzijdig een staat uit te roepen wil laten varen, maar wie weet. Het is zeker goed nieuws dat de EU zich blijkbaar iets kritischer opstelt, en de overeenkomst tussen Hamas en Fatah blijkt meer een intentieverklaring dan een echte overeenkomst.

 

Abbas and his aides say that the Americans and Europeans have come up with a number of proposals that would help the PA president backtrack on the statehood initiative. The Palestinians are now studying these proposals, some of which are not bad, according to sources close to Abbas.

“We have two basic demands,” the sources said.

“We want a commitment that the 1967 borders would serve as the basis for future negotiations and a temporary cessation of settlement construction. The ball is now in the Israeli court.”

Ik zie niet echt verschil met de eisen die Abbas eerder stelde, zoals een complete bouwstop ook in Oost Jeruzalem, en acceptatie door Israel van de pre-1967 wapenstilstandslijnen als basis voor een toekomstige grens. Waarom zou Israel eenzijdig al dat soort concessies moeten doen, in ruil voor niks? Als Abbas een ladder nodig heeft omdat hij wat te hoog van de toren heeft geblazen, dan hoeft Israel die natuurlijk niet te verschaffen in de vorm van extra concessies.

 

Overigens is dit artikel in de Jerusalem Post wat minder optimistisch wat betreft de positie van de EU.

 

RP

----------

 

Palestinian Affairs: Searching for a ladder

http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=226368

By KHALED ABU TOAMEH  
06/24/2011 16:21 

Will Abbas find a way to drop his plans for a unilateral statehood declaration and a unity government with Hamas?

President Mahmoud Abbas is beginning to realize that he has climbed a very high tree regarding the plan to ask the UN to recognize a Palestinian state in September, and is now crying out for someone to provide him with a ladder to come down.

This is how a senior Palestinian Authority official in Ramallah responded when asked this week where Abbas stood on the issue of the statehood bid.

In the last two weeks, according to the official, Abbas has come under immense pressure from the US administration to abandon the statehood initiative and return to the negotiating table with Israel.

Abbas is also facing pressure from the Americans and some EU governments to abandon plans to form a unity government with Hamas, the official said.

The feeling in Ramallah is that Abbas would not be able to resist the growing pressure and would eventually be forced to drop his plans for unilateral statehood and unity with Hamas.

Already this week, there were signs that he was reconsidering the two moves.

On the issue of statehood, Abbas seems to have softened his tone and is no longer threatening to go to the UN at all costs. The message he is sending now to the Americans and Europeans is: Please hold me back from going to the UN.

Abbas is now saying he would rather return to the negotiating table with Israel than proceed with the plan to seek statehood unilaterally. But to do so, he needs Israel to give him something so it won’t appear as if he has once again surrendered to outside pressure.

The PA president is in fact searching for a face saving solution to the mess he got himself into by declaring day and night that nothing would stop him from going to the UN in September.

He is counting on US President Barack Obama to give him the ladder that would enable him to climb down from the tree without being hurt.

“I still have hope in President Obama,” Abbas said this week in an interview with a Lebanese TV station.

Abbas and his aides say that the Americans and Europeans have come up with a number of proposals that would help the PA president backtrack on the statehood initiative. The Palestinians are now studying these proposals, some of which are not bad, according to sources close to Abbas.

“We have two basic demands,” the sources said.

“We want a commitment that the 1967 borders would serve as the basis for future negotiations and a temporary cessation of settlement construction. The ball is now in the Israeli court.”

What worries decision-makers in Ramallah is that most of the EU countries have endorsed Washington’s opposition to the statehood initiative.

The EU’s high representative for foreign affairs, Catherine Ashton, met with Abbas in Ramallah last week and advised him to find a way to resume peace talks with Israel instead of proceeding with the statehood plan.

Ashton’s refusal to support the statehood plan apparently convinced Abbas and his team that the time had come to start searching for an “honorable” way out of the quagmire.

Abbas’s biggest fear is that the Americans and Europeans would hold him responsible for derailing the peace process by embarking on a unilateral move that would draw a strong response from the Israel government, such as abolishing the Oslo Accords or annexing parts of the West Bank.

On the other hand, the statehood initiative has triggered a debate among the top Palestinian leadership in the West Bank as a growing number of senior officials begin to voice opposition to the plan for various reasons. Some are worried it would put the Palestinians on a collision course with the Americans and Europeans, who are the Palestinians’ major funders.

Others fear the plan would deepen divisions among the Palestinians, especially because Abbas has failed to consult with all political groups and Palestinian representatives abroad about the move. Some Palestinians have been asking whether Abbas, whose term in office expired in early 2009, has a mandate to embark on such a historic decision.

The reconciliation pact with Hamas has only exacerbated the crisis. Facing threats from the US and EU to suspend financial aid to the Palestinians if Hamas is allowed to join a unity government, Abbas this week canceled a planned summit with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal in Cairo.

At the summit, Abbas and Mashaal were supposed to announce the establishment of a new Palestinian government under the terms of the Egyptian-brokered deal, which was declared in Cairo on May 4.

Although the official reason for the cancellation was failure to reach agreement on who would head the unity government, Palestinian officials admitted that American and European pressure and “threats” had forced Abbas to change his mind.

Abbas was never keen on the agreement with Hamas and was dragged into it under pressure from the new government in Egypt, said a Fatah representative closely associated with the PA leader.

In light of the fierce opposition in Washington and the EU to the unity deal with Hamas, Abbas’s aides are now talking about delaying the implementation of the reconciliation accord for several months, also because of the wide gap between the two rival parties on security and political issues. As one aide put it, “We announced an agreement when in fact we haven’t reached agreement on anything.”

Abbas’s failure to go to the UN in September and implement the reconciliation accord with Hamas will only cause further damage to what’s left of his credibility among Palestinians. It remains to be seen if any ladder can help him out of this mess.

 

De 'radikale agenda' van de politieke elite van de Israelische Arabieren

 

De politieke elite van de Israelische Arabieren is radikaal anti-Israel, zoals hun uitspraken keer op keer aantonen, althans degenen die de “Arabische partijen” vertegenwoordigen (waartoe ook de communistische partij meestal gemakshalve wordt gerekend, hoewel die feitelijk gemengd is). Er zijn echter ook Israelische Arabieren aktief in de “Joodse” (zelfs zionistische) partijen zoals de Arbeidspartij, Meretz en ik meen zelfs in Kadima en Likoed. Die worden graag over het hoofd gezien door Westerse Israel-critici.

 

Wouter

________________

 

 

 

The 'radical agenda' of Israel's Arab elite

http://www.jpost.com/Features/InThespotlight/Article.aspx?id=222228&R=R44

By BEN HARTMAN
05/25/2011 23:25 

Dan Schueftan's new book aims to sound the alarm about what he calls the extremist threat to Israel posed by the leadership of the Arab community.

University of Haifa Prof. Dan Schueftan’s timing could hardly be better.

Only a few months after the beginning of the Arab Spring, weeks before this year’s Nakba Day – when hundreds of Palestinians from Syria and Lebanon charged Israel’s northern border, bringing the right-ofreturn issue to the forefront of the conflict – and with the Palestinians set to declare statehood unilaterally at the UN in September, Schueftan released Palestinians in Israel – The Arab Minority’s Struggle Against the Jewish State. The 844-page tome, he asserts, is the most authoritative and well-researched book on the subject of Arab citizens of Israel to date.

“Actually, these are three different books that became one book, because I wanted to get a comprehensive picture of what is happening in Israel with the Arab citizens of Israel,” he says. “First of all, it’s a historic book that discusses the relationship between Jews and Arabs in Israel in the broad global and regional context and in the context of domestic developments within Israeli society and Arab society [in the country]. The second is a political book that focuses on the political positions of the Arab political leaders and Arab elites and Arab public opinion [here]. The third part is a social economic analysis that tries to determine the extent of the Arab economic and social problems and what is the major origin of it.”

Schueftan spoke to The Jerusalem Post at his multi-level apartment in Givatayim last week, in an office packed wall-to-wall with crates of documents, source materials and office supplies. On one wall, he pointed out a well-preserved rifle from the US Civil War that he picked up in Czechoslovakia shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall. While he did have some trouble getting it back to Israel, he joked that it should come in handy “for the Israeli civil war.”

The head of the National Security Studies Center at the University of Haifa and a lecturer at its school of political sciences, Schueftan has been no stranger to controversy during his decades-long career, in which he has worked as a top academic and advised former prime ministers Yitzhak Rabin and Ariel Sharon. His 1999 book Disengagement: Israel and the Palestinian Entity is largely credited with inspiring the 2005 Gaza pullout, and he has been outspoken about what he sees as the Arab world’s failures as a society.

In Israel, Schueftan draws a line between Muslim Arab and Christian Arab society, and argues that the main divide here is not between Jews and Arabs, but between those who have embraced modernity and those who have not.

“The socioeconomic divide isn’t between Jews and Arabs, [but] between haredi Jews and Muslim Arabs on the one hand, and nonharedi Jews and Christian Arabs on the other. The reason that is more meaningful than any other elements combined is the unwillingness of the Muslim Arabs to do what the Christian Arabs have done and what most of the non-haredi Jews have done, namely to adjust themselves to the modern world, primarily by having smaller families and both spouses working.”

Schueftan argues that racism or discrimination play little if any role in the socioeconomic position of Israeli Arabs and that “when it comes to socioeconomic issues, what most people assume about the Arabs proves to be untrue. For one, they are by far not as poor as they pretend to be, and second, this is almost exclusively a product of their own cultural and political decisions rather than discrimination by the Jews.

“It’s not that I claim that,” he adds, “I prove it in a way that is indisputable.”

Beyond the socioeconomic issue, Schueftan states that the book will shed light on what he says is a widespread radical agenda of delegitimization and extremism directed at Israel by the elite of its own Arab citizens.

“If you speak of the hostility of the Arab political leadership [in Israel], I think most Jews in Israel and most observers would agree that they are very radical. But if you look at the Arab elites... you would find that the depth of hostility and the inability to reach any kind of compromise because they insist on the destruction of everything the Jews have constructed as a collective, is much stronger than most people would assume.”

He says the younger generation of Arabs in Israel has become more radical than their forefathers, “who knew that radical actions have frightening consequences,” and that today, “for the Arabs in Israel, demolishing the Jewish national project and establishing their own entity on the ruins of the Jewish state is not just a position – it became part of their identity.”

Schueftan makes a distinction between the average Israeli Arab on the street and the political and cultural elite who he says are responsible for driving the engine of radicalization, even though the difference between those elites and the public that elects and supports them is at times murky.

“These [Arab Israeli] elites, with the support of public opinion, basically say that the existence of Israel was born in sin. In other words, that the act of the establishing Israel was an act of colonialism that had no justification whatsoever, and Israel continues to live in sin because the basic tenets of Israel and the way that Israel treats its environment is colonial. Essentially the Jewish state is profoundly illegitimate. It was born illegally, exists illegally and its essence is illegal. A Jewish state by definition is illegal because Arabs don’t recognize the existence of a Jewish people.”

Schueftan doesn’t mince words and appears to have little if any tolerance for what is often termed “political correctness.” He sees Arab Muslim society as a largely failed creation that is hostile to the modern world (including Cairo, which he calls “a sewer”), professes disdain for “kneejerk” liberals in Europe, the US and elsewhere who delegitimize Israel, and speaks in terms of absolute havoc and heartbreak about a reality in which demographic changes make Israel a majority-Arab state.

When asked what future Jews could expect in such a reality, he says, “I’m not even willing to discuss it – if anybody is willing to believe that the Jews should live in an Arab state, I don’t want to discuss why it will be impossible. It’s an insulting question... It’s too obvious for anyone who isn’t sick and distorted.”

Schueftan sees no chance for a solution between Jews and Arabs as long as they continue to believe in the principles and national desires that they hold dear. So what’s to be done? Schueftan describes his solution for the lack of a solution as “damage control.”

“I’m saying, under the prevailing circumstances, there is no solution to the problem that Arabs and Jews have with each other as an Arab minority in a Jewish state. There is no solution unless one of the parties dramatically changes structural parts of its attitude. The real question is not what is the solution, but how do you live as long as possible without a solution.”

For a solution to be reached, he continues, “what the Jews consider vital for their existence must be demolished. And unless the Arabs change in a radical way, there is no solution, and I don’t see the Jews changing in a radical way and deciding to commit mass suicide.”

Schueftan’s damage control strategy is based on a combination of increasing equality for all the country’s citizens, and at the same time increasing Israel’s “Jewishness.”

“The first thing is to continue what we were doing, which is deepening the civil equality in Israel, not only between Arabs and Jews, but also between the periphery and the center. When it comes to Arabs, I’m sure it will not help because the more educated they are, they won’t be less radical – if anything, more radical. But for my own needs, I want to live in a state that doesn’t have unjustified discrimination, so I want to obliterate what little is left of it. Not because it will improve relations between Jews and Arabs, but because having a strong, equal society is something that will strengthen my own society,” he says.

“At the same time I want to strengthen the Jewish side of Israel. We must, for instance, legislate that Hebrew will be the official language. Because everything that will strengthen the Jewish and democratic nature of Israel is the best form of damage control vis-à-vis what we can do with the Arab minority in Israel.”

Schueftan maintains that his most critical audience is in Israel, but that the book’s Hebrew run is most important because he believes that, as with Disengagement, it could potentially have a watershed effect on Israeli society.

“What we did in Gaza was a tremendous success. My objective was not to have a friendly Palestinian neighbor. I never thought this was a possibility. My objective was to have a stronger Israeli society, and Israel without Gaza is a stronger Israeli society than when we are sitting in Gaza. Not because it will bring peace or the Palestinians deserve it, but because I want a stronger Israeli society because I know there won’t be peace,” he states.

“The settlements in Gaza were never viable to begin with, and good riddance. This is also true of the settlements in the populated heartland of the West Bank. If this book has an effect similar to my previous book, I’ll be delighted.”

 

 

 

Die Linke in Duitsland beschuldigd van antisemitisme

 

Drie jaar geleden verraste Gregor Gysi ons met een pro-Israel speech, waarin hij duidelijk stelling nam tegen antizionisme en boycotcampagnes. Van antisemitisme binnen zijn partij “Die Linke” wil hij echter niet weten. Het probleem zit niet alleen bij Oost-Duitse leden en ook niet alleen bij Arabische of islamitische leden....

 

Wouter

_______________

 

Germany's Left Party Faces Charges of Anti-Semitism

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,769487,00.html

Swatiskas intertwined in the Star of David, a map of the Middle East with Israel missing, boycotts of Israeli products: Germany's far-left Left Party, many feel, has a growing anti-Semitism problem. The issue threatens to divide the party.

Germany's far-left Left Party has been struggling for months to have its voice heard on the national political stage. Falling membership numbers, shrinking support and a very public leadership battle this spring have all left the party struggling to find relevance.

Now, though, the party is facing yet another challenge. For years, the Left Party -- a partial outgrowth of the East German communists -- has been criticized for harboring anti-Semitism and being overtly critical of Israel. Just recently, Left Party floor leader Gregor Gysi pushed a resolution through the party's parliamentary faction stating: "In the future, the representatives of the Left Party faction will take action against any form of anti-Semitism in society."

The party, the resolution read, will no longer participate in boycotts of Israeli products, will refrain from demanding a single-state solution to the Middle East conflict and will not take part in this year's Gaza flotilla.

That resolution, however, did not sit well with the party's left wing. The group protested against being "muzzled," complaining that Gysi's declaration was "undemocratic" and "dangerous," as Left Party parliamentarian Annette Groth complained. And Gysi, formerly head of the party, gave in. This week, he plans to compose a further resolution on anti-Semitism.

He provided a hint at what it might contain in a recent interview with the leftist paper Neues Deutschland. "I don't see a problem with anti-Semitism in the Left Party," he said. "I am not a fan of the inflationary use of the term 'anti-Semitism.'" Gysi himself is from a family that has Jewish roots, several members of which were murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust.

Yet More Strife

More pragmatic members of the Left Party are up in arms. "A further resolution on the subject ... wouldn't solve a single problem, rather it would create new ones," said Raju Sharma, a Left Party parliamentarian who is also the party's treasurer. Michael Leutert, also a member of Germany's federal parliament, the Bundestag, is concerned that the issue could plunge the party into yet more strife.

Still, it seems unlikely that the Left Party will be able to quickly silence the debate. On Monday, Dieter Graumann, president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, wrote a guest commentary for the daily Süddeutsche Zeitung in which he accused Left Party members, particularly those from western Germany, of "downright pathalogical hatred of Israel." He also wrote that the "old anti-Zionist spirit from East Germany still stains the party."

There are many within the party who agree. Chief among them is Benjamin-Christopher Krüger, a founding member of a Left Party working group which aims at rooting all forms of anti-Semitism out of the party. "We have an anti-Semitism problem," he said.

A recent study by the University of Leipzig quoted in the daily Frankfurter Rundschau would seem to support Krüger's claim. The study said that positions hostile to both Israel and Jews are "increasingly dominant within the party" and critics of anti-Semitic positions are "increasingly isolated."

Several recent incidents bear witness to the problem. In April, the website of the district chapter of the Left Party in the western city of Duisburg featured a swastika entangled with a Star of David. The symbol linked to a pamphlet which called Israel a "rogue nation" and called for a boycott of Israeli products. The Duisburg Left Party chapter distanced itself from the pamphlet and claimed that the site had been illegally manipulated -- but the head of the Duisburg Left Party has long supported a boycott of Israeli products.

In May, Inge Höger, a member of the Bundestag from the western state of North Rhine-Westphalia, appeared at a Palestinians in Europe conference attended by numerous Hamas sympathizers. She was wearing a scarf printed with a map of the Middle East that did not include Israel. Höger claimed that she was handed the scarf and didn't want to be impolite.

A Painful Confrontation

In Bremen in March, the party refused to join a multi-party appeal against a further call to boycott Israeli products. The party allowed that the call was reminiscent of Nazi campaigns against patronizing Jewish shops in the 1930s, but said that boycotts against Israel were not anti-Semitic.

The recent incidents are of a kind with several similar transgressions in the past. In May 2010, three Left Party parliamentarians took part in the Gaza flotilla which sought to break the Israeli embargo on the Gaza Strip. Also that year, three parliamentarians remained seated following Israeli President Shimon Peres' address in the Bundestag. In 2009, nine Left Party parliamentarians were at a demonstration at which "death to Israel" was chanted. In 2008, 11 Left Party members of the Bundestag refused to support a resolution against anti-Semitism.

The party has frequently defended itself against criticism by saying that it should be possible to find fault with Israel without being accused of anti-Semitism. But Andrej Hermlin, a well-known pianist and Left Party member, finds the defense disingenuous. He calls it the "cowardly strategy of leftist anti-Semitism" and says the debate in recent weeks has been "repellent and nauseating."

He's not alone. Anetta Kahane, a Jew raised in the east who heads the Amadeu Antonio Foundation, which usually focuses on fighting right-extremism, said that the party has plenty of work to do. "Without a painful confrontation with its own history of anti-Semitism in East Germany, but also with anti-Semitism within the West German left, the Left Party cannot be a credible partner in the fight against discrimination of all kinds," she said.

This week, she is hosting a podium discussion on the topic. It's title: "The Renaissance of Anti-Semitism on the Left?"

cgh -- with reporting by Markus Deggerich

 

Delta Airlines gaat Joden weren van vluchten naar Saudi Arabië

 

Geheel in lijn met de Arabische boycot van Israel, mogen ook bedrijven die met Arabische bedrijven samenwerken of handeldrijven niet met Israel handeldrijven. In de jaren ’70 nog werkten zelfs Nederlandse overheidsinstanties mee aan het afgeven van niet-Jood verklaringen aan bedrijven die handelden met Saoedi-Arabië, wat uiteraard tot de nodige ophef leidde en toen verboden werd. Veel mensen vonden deze niet-Jood verklaringen racistisch. Dat het inderdaad ook om Joden (en niet slechts om Israel of zionisten, het slappe verweer van de antiziosemieten) gaat, blijkt ook uit het volgende bericht. Joden mogen van oudsher Saudi-Arabië niet in, iets waar ik overigens maar zelden kritiek op hoor van progressieve Israel critici, maar nu zou voor het eerst een Amerikaanse vliegmaatschappij aan dit racistische beleid meewerken.

 

RP

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

 

 

KLM partner Delta Airlines gaat Joden weren van bepaalde vluchten

'Delta Airlines eerste Sharia-gecertificeerde luchtvaartmaatschappij VS'

 

Delta Airlines, net als KLM partner in het zogenaamde Sky Teamsamenwerkingsverband, is van plan om Saudi Arabian Airlines als nieuwe partner toe te laten, wat inhoudt dat Joden en houders van een Israëlisch paspoort geweerd moeten worden uit vliegtuigen die vanuit New York of Washington op Jeddah (Saudi Arabië) vliegen. Het American Center for Law en Justice (ACLJ) veroordeelt deze flagrante religieuze discriminatie en hoopt dat het Congres de maatregel blokkeert.

 

De kwestie werd publiekelijk aangezwengeld door de voormalige volksvertegenwoordiger Fred Grandy, die inmiddels radio presentator is en bij zijn vorige werkgever werd ontslagen omdat hij te kritisch zou zijn op de islam. Tijdens een interview met collega presentator Jeff Katz merkte Grandy's vrouw Catherine op dat 'de Sharia met de snelheid van een straalvliegtuig wordt ingevoerd. Het lijkt erop dat Delta de eerste Sharia-gecertificeerde luchtvaartmaatschappij van de VS wordt.'

'Deze griezelige Sharia, economische jihad, pakt je inmiddels overal waar je komt,' vervolgde Catherine Grandy. 'Dat is gewoon niet goed, en ik ben er zeker van dat dit getoetst zal worden.' Volgens haar man Fred zou de maatregel er wel eens toe kunnen leiden dat reizigers Delta Airlines gaan mijden.

Delta Airlines topman Richard Anderson wilde niet reageren. Een klantenservice coördinator van de luchtvaartmaatschappij gaf de schuld aan de Saudische eisen om met Delta te gaan samenwerken. Jeffrey Lovitky, advocaat van het ACLJ, zegt echter dat Delta niet verplicht is om het racistische beleid van Saudi Arabië over te nemen, en denkt dat het een echt probleem wordt als Amerikaanse staatsburgers hierdoor gediscrimineerd worden.

Naast het weren van Joden en Israëliërs zouden er volgens Lovitky nog andere Saudische eisen kunnen worden ingevoerd, zoals kleding restricties voor vrouwen en het verbieden van het meenemen van bepaalde religieuze (Joodse en Christelijke) lectuur zoals de Bijbel. 'U kunt zich voorstellen hoe dit botst met onze Amerikaanse waarden. De invoering van dit soort restricties is extreem zorgwekkend.'

 

 

Lees meer op: http://xandernieuws.punt.nl/?r=1&id=634092

 

Benny Morris geintimideerd bij lezing in London

 

Antizionisten hebben altijd hun mond vol over hoe de Israellobby hen de mond probeert te snoeren, en een debat over Israels vermeende misdaden onmogelijk maakt. Ondertussen lezen en horen we in de media vooral het Palestijnse narratief en is er voortdurend kritiek op Israel,maar bij velen bestaat desondanks het beeld dat kritiek op Israel nog steeds moeilijk ligt. Woordvoerders van Israel en mensen die als pro-Israel te boek staan, krijgen vaak vroeg of laat te maken met intimidatie. Lezingen worden om die reden afgelast of ingekort, bijeenkomsten gecanceled, zogenaamd omdat men de veiligheid niet kan garanderen en bedrijven trekken zich onder dergelijke druk en intimidatie terug uit projecten in Israel. Ook bands en zangers zeggen hun concerten in Israel vaak af, al zijn er ook die de moed hebben er tegenin te gaan. Ook Benny Morris wordt nu belaagd door een groep boze Arabieren.

 

RP

---------

 

As I walked down Kingsway, a major London thoroughfare, a small mob—I don't think any other word is appropriate—of some dozen Muslims, Arabs and their supporters, both men and women, surrounded me and, walking alongside me for several hundred yards as I advanced towards the building where the lecture was to take place, raucously harangued and bated me with cries of "fascist," "racist," "England should never have allowed you in," "you shouldn't be allowed to speak." Several spoke in broken, obviously newly acquired, English. Violence was thick in the air though none was actually used. Passersby looked on in astonishment, and perhaps shame, but it seemed the sight of angry bearded, caftaned Muslims was sufficient to deter any intervention. To me, it felt like Brownshirts in a street scene in 1920s Berlin—though on Kingsway no one, to the best of my recall, screamed the word "Jew."

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

 

Accosted on Kingsway

Benny Morris 

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/curbing-muslim-intimidation-5496 

June 20, 2011

 

Last week I had a rather ambivalent experience at the London School of Economics which may point to something beyond the personal—indeed, about where Britain, and possibly Western Europe as a whole, are heading.

I was invited to lecture on the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948. A few hours earlier, a fire had broken out in a nearby building and Kingsway was sealed off, so the taxi dropped me off a few blocks away. As I walked down Kingsway, a major London thoroughfare, a small mob—I don't think any other word is appropriate—of some dozen Muslims, Arabs and their supporters, both men and women, surrounded me and, walking alongside me for several hundred yards as I advanced towards the building where the lecture was to take place, raucously harangued and bated me with cries of "fascist," "racist," "England should never have allowed you in," "you shouldn't be allowed to speak." Several spoke in broken, obviously newly acquired, English. Violence was thick in the air though none was actually used. Passersby looked on in astonishment, and perhaps shame, but it seemed the sight of angry bearded, caftaned Muslims was sufficient to deter any intervention. To me, it felt like Brownshirts in a street scene in 1920s Berlin—though on Kingsway no one, to the best of my recall, screamed the word "Jew."

In the lecture hall, after a cup of tea, the session, with an audience of some 350 students and others, passed remarkably smoothly. Entry required tickets, which were freely dispensed upon the provision of name and address. The LSE had beefed up security and several bobbies stood outside the building confronting the dozen or so demonstrators who held aloft placards stating "Benni Morris is a Fascist," "Go home," etc. Inside, in the lecture hall, surprisingly, there was absolute silence during my talk; you could have heard a pin drop. The Q and A session afterwards was by and large civilized, though several Muslim participants, including girls with scarves, displayed anger and dismissiveness. One asserted: "You are not an historian"; another, more delicately, suggested that the lecturer "professes to be a serious historian." However, the overwhelming majority of the audience was respectful and, in my view, appreciative (to judge by the volume of clapping at the end of the lecture and at the end of the Q and A), but a small minority jeered and clapped loudly when anti-Zionist questions or points were raised.

The manner of our exit from the lecture hall was also noteworthy. The chairman asked the audience to stay in their seats until the group on stage departed. I was ushered by the security team down an elevator and through a narrow basement passage full of kitchen stores and out a side entrance. Like an American president in a B-rated thriller.

Another disconcerting element in what went on in the lecture hall was the hosting LSE professor's brief introductory remarks, which failed completely to note the harrassment and intimidation (of which he had been made fully aware) of the lecturer on Kingsway, or to criticize them in any way. My assumption was that some were LSE students.

There was a sense that the chairman was deliberately displaying caution in view of the world in which he lives. Which brings me back to what happened on Kingsway.

Uncurbed, Muslim intimidation in the public domain of people they see as disagreeing with them is palpable and palpably affecting the British Christian majority among whom they live, indeed, cowing them into silence. One senses real fear (perhaps a corner was turned with the Muslim reactions around the world to the "Mohammed cartoons" and the responses in the West to these reactions.) Which, if true, is a sad indication of what is happening in the historic mother of democracies and may point to what is happening, and will increasingly happen, in Western Europe in general in the coming decades. (A video of the LSE talk is on the website. A Muslim cameraman also made a video of the mob scene on Kingsway and posted it on the web—but appears to have thought better of it and subsequently removed it.)

 

 

Palestijnse familie gedood door NAVO bombardement

 

Ik was het eerlijk gezegd alweer vergeten, maar inderdaad: er was wel iets op het nieuws over die burgerdoden. Niet dat er uitgebreide reportages waren over de slachtoffers, en ik heb ook niks over internationale veroordelingen van het incident gehoord. Het werd in de media behandeld als een incident, niet als een grove schending van de mensenrechten. Vergelijk dit met een Israelische aanval op een Hamas doelwit waarbij volgens Palestijnse bronnen 19 burgerdoden (waaronder 9 kinderen) zijn gevallen. Dit cijfer wordt uiteraard klakkeloos aangenomen, en ook wordt vaak al snel gesuggereerd dat Israel niet alleen te weinig heeft gedaan om deze doden te voorkomen, maar ook dat het daar op aan heeft gestuurd of er in elk geval geen problemen mee heeft. Het argument dat Hamas scholen en andere civiele gebouwen gebruikt om zich achter te verschuilen wordt altijd direct van tafel geveegd als zijnde ‘zionistische propaganda’. Allerlei politieke leiders en mensenrechtenorganisaties spreken vervolgens hun afschuw uit over de vreselijke dood van zoveel onschuldige burgers, Van Agt en anderen mogen uitgebreid komen uitleggen dat Israel erger is dan de nazi’s, en er wordt gespeculeerd over een spoedzitting van de VN Veiligheidsraad. Ook wordt Israels bestaansrecht en democratische karakter betwist, Obama wordt beticht van slappe knieën tegenover de sluwe gewiekste zionisten, en er worden natuurlijk kamervragen gesteld.

Nee, wij zouden zoiets natuurlijk nooit doen, wij zijn beschaafd, wij hebben geleerd dat je geen kwaad met kwaad moet vergelden, en bovendien die Hamas, dat zijn toch best redelijke jongens, die toch ook gewoon voor hun rechten opkomen en zijn gekozen door een bevolking die al decennia wordt onderdrukt en geen vertrouwen meer heeft in het eindeloze gepraat van hun leiders.

 

RP

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

 

Palestinian Arab family killed - by NATO. Where are the condemnations?

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/06/palestinian-arab-family-killed-by-nato.html

 

From Ma'an:

A Palestinian family of four was killed in a NATO airstrike Monday on the Libyan capital of Tripoli, according to the Palestinian Authority’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The ministry explained in a statement published Tuesday on the government news agency Wafa, that the International Red Crescent Association had relayed the news. 

The family, according to Wafa’s report, had lived in the Yarmouk refugee camp in Damascus, before moving to Tripoli.

Palestinian ambassador to Libya Atif Udah told Ma'an radio the family was in a three-story building targeted by a NATO air attack. He identified the victims as Abdullah Muhammad Ash-Shihab, his wife Karima and his 6-month-old twins Khalid and Jumanah.

 

Some 19 civilians were claimed to have been killed in that airstrike, which came only a day after another errant airstrike from NATO killed 9 civilians.

NATO insists that they hit a military target on Monday.

While the increasing number of civilian deaths at the hands of NATO in both Libya and Afghanistan does get some news coverage, the amount and emotional content of that coverage pales next to news coverage of Palestinian Arab deaths from Israeli actions - and the vitriol that accompanies Israeli actions is virtually nonexistent when discussing Western killings of civilians.

It is telling that NATO didn't manage to kill its target in the Monday strike. 

There is simply no comparison between the sanitized news coverage and lack of world reaction of these NATO attacks with that of Israel's attack in July 2002that killed Hamas master terrorist Salah Shehadeh  - and some 14 civilians who were in the same building.

 

 

Wat als de Joden de Palestijnse weg gevolgd hadden?

Golda Meir pondered what would have become of the Jews had they been destroyed by the Arab armies.

 

 

I imagine the argument will be made that while the Jews may have achieved all this, they did not have their land stolen from them. This is, of course, a canard, another convenient lie. They did lose property all over Europe and the Mideast. And there was never an independent Palestine run by Palestinian Arabs. Ever. Jews and Arabs lived in this area controlled first by the Turks and then by the British. The U.N. offered the two-state solution that we hear so much about in 1947. The problem then, and now, is that it was accepted by only one party, Israel. No doubt, the situation of Arab residents of the Middle East back then may have been difficult, but it is incomprehensible that their lot was worse than that of the Jews at the end of World War II.

 

 

Het land werd niet gestolen van de Palestijnen, want zij bezaten het voor het merendeel niet. Het merendeel was staatsland in bezit van de Ottomanen, nadien de Britten, of land van (vaak afwezige) landheren dat aan de dorpen en hun bewoners collectief werd geleased. De Palestijnen verwierpen ieder compromis, ook plannen waarin zij ca. 85% van (het reeds gedeelde) mandaat Palestina zouden krijgen. Zij weigerden bovendien met de Britse autoriteiten en Joodse organisaties samen te werken. De mufti zette de Arabieren in Palestina meermaals op tegen de Joodse bevolking, met honderden doden en gewonden tot gevolg. Dit vormde de aanleiding voor de oprichting van een Joodse ondergrondse, want de Britten lieten na de Joodse burgers in Palestina te beschermen. De Arabieren profiteerden bovendien van de komst van de zionisten en hun investeringen in het land. Zie: Zionism and its impact on Palestinians

 

RP

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

 

 

What If Jews Had Followed the Palestinian Path?

Postwar Jewish refugees left everything they had in Europe—no 'right of return' requested.

·                                 Article

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304432304576371771855162448.html

By WARREN KOZAK

 

 

It is doubtful that there has ever been a more miserable human refuse than Jewish survivors after World War II. Starving, emaciated, stateless—they were not welcomed back by countries where they had lived for generations as assimilated and educated citizens. Germany was no place to return to and in Kielce, Poland, 40 Jews who survived the Holocaust were killed in a pogrom one year after the war ended. The European Jew, circa 1945, quickly went from victim to international refugee disaster.

Yet within a very brief time, this epic calamity disappeared, so much so that few people today even remember the period. How did this happen in an era when Palestinian refugees have continued to be stateless for generations?

In 1945, there were hundreds of thousands of Jewish survivors living in DP Camps (displaced persons) across Europe. They were fed and clothed by Jewish and international relief organizations. Had the world's Jewish population played this situation as the Arabs and Palestinians have, everything would look very different today.

To begin with, the Jews would all still be living in these DP camps, only now the camps would have become squalid ghettos throughout Europe. The refugees would continue to be fed and clothed by a committee similar to UNRWA—the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (paid for mostly by the United States since 1948). Blessed with one of the world's highest birth rates, they would now number in the many millions. And 66 years later, new generations, fed on a mixture of hate and lies against the Europeans, would now seethe with anger.

Sometime in the early 1960s, the Jewish leadership of these refugee camps, having been trained in Moscow to wreak havoc on the West (as Yasser Arafat was) would have started to employ terrorism to shake down governments. Airplane hijackings in the 1970s would have been followed by passenger killings. There would have been attacks on high-profile targets as well—say, the German or Polish Olympic teams.

By the 1990s, the real mayhem would have begun. Raised on victimhood and used as cannon fodder by corrupt leaders, a generation of younger Jews would be blowing up buses, restaurants and themselves. The billions of dollars extorted from various governments would not have gone to the inhabitants of the camps. The money would be in the Swiss bank accounts of the refugees' famous and flamboyant leaders and their lackies.

So now it's the present, generations past the end of World War II, and the festering Jewish refugee problem throughout Europe has absolutely no end in sight. The worst part of this story would be the wasted lives of millions of human beings in the camps—inventions not invented, illnesses not cured, high-tech startups not started up, symphonies and books not written—a real cultural and spiritual desert.

None of this happened, of course. Instead, the Jewish refugees returned to their ancestral homeland. They left everything they had in Europe and turned their backs on the Continent—no "right of return" requested. They were welcomed by the 650,000 Jewish residents of Israel.

An additional 700,000 Jewish refugees flooded into the new state from Arab lands after they were summarily kicked out. Again losing everything after generations in one place; again welcomed in their new home.

In Israel, they did it all the hard way. They built a new country from scratch with roads, housing and schools. They created agricultural collectives to feed their people. They created a successful economy without domestic oil, and they built one of the world's most vibrant democracies in a region sadly devoid of free thought.

Yes, the Israelis did all this with the financial assistance of Jews around the world and others who helped get them on their feet so they could take care of themselves. These outsiders did not ignore them, or demean them, or use them as pawns in their own political schemes—as the Arab nations have done with the Palestinians.

I imagine the argument will be made that while the Jews may have achieved all this, they did not have their land stolen from them. This is, of course, a canard, another convenient lie. They did lose property all over Europe and the Mideast. And there was never an independent Palestine run by Palestinian Arabs. Ever. Jews and Arabs lived in this area controlled first by the Turks and then by the British. The U.N. offered the two-state solution that we hear so much about in 1947. The problem then, and now, is that it was accepted by only one party, Israel. No doubt, the situation of Arab residents of the Middle East back then may have been difficult, but it is incomprehensible that their lot was worse than that of the Jews at the end of World War II.

We don't hear about any of this because giving human beings hope and purpose doesn't make great copy. Squalor, victimhood and terror are always more exciting. Perhaps in the end, the greatest crime of the Jews was that they quietly created something from nothing. And in the process, they transformed themselves.

Golda Meir is credited with having said that if the Jews had not fought back against the Arab armies and had been destroyed in 1948, they would have received the most beautiful eulogies throughout the world. Instead, they chose to stand their ground and defend themselves. And in winning, they received the world's condemnation. Meir said she would take the condemnation over the eulogies.

Mr. Kozak is the author of "LeMay: The Life and Wars of General Curtis LeMay" (Regnery, 2009).