dinsdag 30 oktober 2012

Haaretz, Gideon Levy, en de "Israel apartheid" leugen

 

Het zijn verontrustende cijfers, in de Haaretz van vorige week, over de houding van Joodse Israeli’s tegenover de Arabische minderheid, maar Gideon Levy dikt ze flink aan. Haaretz heeft de kop inmiddels afgezwakt tot: Survey: Most Israeli Jews wouldn't give Palestinians vote if West Bank was annexed. Terecht wijst Yemini erop dat de rechten van Israelische Arabieren nog steeds door een meerderheid van Joodse Israeli’s worden ondersteund en dat er zelfs aanzienlijke minderheden zijn om die te verbeteren, maar fraai is het natuurlijk niet dat een derde de Arabieren hun stemrecht wil ontnemen en dat zo’n 45% geen Arabier als buurman wil hebben. Het is niet de eerste keer dat dergelijke cijfers naar buiten komen. Wat echter steeds mist is vergelijkend materiaal. Hoeveel Nederlanders willen geen moslim als buurman? Hoeveel Hongaren geen zigeuner, en hoeveel Turken geen Griek? Hoeveel Amerikanen zien hun dochter liever niet met een Afro-American thuiskomen en hoeveel Egyptenaren moeten niks van de Kopten hebben? Yemini geeft hier een treffend voorbeeld van:

 

Forty-two percent of the French, according to one survey, think of the Muslim presence as a “threat,” 68% think Muslims do not integrate, and 61% blame the Muslims themselves for their supposed failure to integrate. Similar results were observed in each and every country where this kind of survey was carried out.

 

Het is daarmee niet minder triest dat er in Israel zoveel vooroordelen en wederzijds wantrouwen bestaan, maar het maant wel tot enige terughoudendheid in ons oordeel over Israel. Daarbij is een belangrijk verschil dat Israel in een strijd met de Palestijnen en ook een deel van de Arabische wereld is verwikkeld, en veel Israelische Arabieren met hun vijand sympathiseren, dat is althans het geluid van veel leiders van de gemeenschap. 

 

RP

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

 

Haaretz, Gideon Levy, and the Israel apartheid canard

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/haaretz-gideon-levy-and-the-israel-apartheid-canard/

OCTOBER 26, 2012, 2:23 AM

Ben-Dror Yemini is a senior journalist with the Hebrew daily Maariv who lectures about the anti-Israel lie industry[More]

 

‘Survey: Most Israeli Jews would support apartheid regime,” the headline in Haaretz screamed earlier this week. If that were true, it indeed would have been a worrying development. But the information below will demonstrate that the article contains some of the most blatant anti-Israel lies published in recent years. And Gideon Levy, the one and only – who is read more in English than in Hebrew — was awarded the task of explaining the survey to the whole wide world.

The result? Israel is apparently not merely on the way to becoming South Africa. It has already turned into South Africa. The lie has been making waves the world over, spreading like wildfire. The goal has been achieved.

It’s not easy to chase down a lie that has already gained traction worldwide. But it seems there is no escaping the attempt, at least. So we’ll bring the facts — just the facts — and let them speak for themselves. Hopefully, someone is listening.

Gideon Levy’s name graces the byline of the main article, which included the survey results. The same Gideon Levy also wrote the accompanying commentary article. But Levy was probably so elated, that he did not even notice that he implicates himself in lies.

According to the survey, 53 percent of Israelis are not opposed to having an Arab neighbor. That much is clear. But when Gideon Levy passes from reporting to overt incitement masquerading as “interpretation,” he writes that “the majority doesn’t want… Arab neighbors.” Could it be that the second Gideon Levy didn’t properly read what was written by the first Gideon Levy?

Moving on: According to the survey, 33% of Israelis support revoking the voting rights of Israeli Arabs. That’s a grave figure in and of itself. But when it comes to the “interpretation,” Levy writes that “the majority doesn’t want Arabs to vote for the Knesset.” Again, Levy the interpreter seems not to have read Levy the reporter. Is he capable of formulating a sentence that includes only the truth? And where in the hell is his editor? Was there not a single editor who could properly parse the results of the survey?

But then again, the lies were designed to lend Levy the justification for his political conclusion; namely, that the possibility of a Jewish and democratic state of Israel has expired. In the past, I wrote that Gideon Levy is “Baron of the Falsehood Industry.” Levy insists on providing more and more evidence to this effect.

According to the survey, 69% of Israelis oppose the granting of voting rights to Palestinian Arabs if the territories are annexed.

Sounds scary.

The real reason that most Israelis oppose the annexation of the territories, however, is, most likely, that they would like to avoid a bi-national state or the risk of an apartheid one. But Haaretz pulled off an extraordinary feat of deductive logic, stating that most Israelis support apartheid. It’s like a survey indicating that most Israelis are opposed to violence — but that if they were to be attacked by a mugger, they would react violently – breeding a report with the title “Most Israelis support violence.” This is the story of the Haaretz headline. It’s based on a purely hypothetical, or, more precisely, manipulative situation.

Meanwhile, CAMERA has published the full survey, and it turns out that the famed reporter and commentator may have committed full-fledged fraud. For instance, on the issue of separate roads for Israelis in the West Bank, 50% of respondents answered that having separate roads is “not a good situation but there is no alternative,” while another 17% said it was just “not good.” What appears in Levy’s version? Only “no alternative.” The “not good” response was simply omitted. And there are other examples there.

Baron of the Falsehood Industry indeed.

Let’s remain briefly with the issue of neighbors. Many surveys in Western countries show that white indigenous people are not enthusiastic about foreigner neighbors. Forty-two percent of the French, according to one survey, think of the Muslim presence as a “threat,” 68% think Muslims do not integrate, and 61% blame the Muslims themselves for their supposed failure to integrate. Similar results were observed in each and every country where this kind of survey was carried out.

That does not make all Europeans racists. It indicates that there are concerns, even if they aren’t always justified. The difference between Israel and other Western countries is that Israel is in the throes of a conflict. Jewish Israelis are faced with a barrage of Islamic incitement; and yet, most are not opposed to having an Arab neighbor, and support the political rights of the Arabs, even according to the results of this distorted survey.

This is actually a badge of honor for the average Israeli.

According to the survey, 47% of Israelis support a population transfer of Israeli Arabs. That’s interesting. Historically, Israel has had only one party that supported a population transfer, and even then only on the condition that it would be consensual. That party won only three seats in the Knesset.

How could the hand of Levy’s editor not tremble? Wasn’t he aware of the facts?

Currently, there isn’t a single political party in Israel that supports apartheid. One right-wing party, which won three seats, has a member who succeeded to be elected despite the fact that his ideology is reminiscent of Kahanism. He is the only current Knesset member of whom it might be said that he supports a population transfer. One of 120.

According to Haaretz, any party to run on a platform of population transfer and apartheid would win an automatic majority of seats in Knesset.

In view of the circumstances, wherein Hamas is the largest party in the territories, and types like Azmi Bishara, Raed Salah and Haneen Zoabi are the loudest speakers for the Palestinian Arabs, the Jewish population has also produced some radical, fringe elements. We must oppose them. But most Israelis reveal an amazing maturity, and consistently vote for parties that support equal rights for Israeli Arabs.

survey conducted by the “SIKUY” association, which no one can accuse of harboring any right-wing inclinations, found that “60% of [Israeli] Jews believe that promoting the equality of Arab citizens is in the interest of the state.” Sixty percent! In addition, the survey found that “53% of the Jewish population in Israel is bothered by the inequality of Israeli Arabs,” and that “40% of Jews are willing to pay a personal price in order to achieve the goal of civil equality in Israel.” Indeed, a personal price for equality, for a sense of partnership.

This survey was more comprehensive and thorough than the survey ordered by a political organization that probably marked its goal on advance.

survey conducted by the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies just last year found that 48% of the Jews in Israel support (vs. 43% who oppose) a “package deal,” including a mobilization of citizenry and government, to improve the situation of the Israeli Arabs within the framework of “inclusive citizenship.” But this survey received no front-page headlines.

The survey was much more serious and far more thoughtful, and its academic staff comprised mostly leftists. Not the kind of leftists that characterize Haaretz, but the kind that want to investigate, to know, to propose a framework to improve the current situation, which indeed merits improvement.

multi-year survey reveals a link between the political situation and support for equality; in 1985, only 44% supported equality; in 1999, 73% supported equality; in 2003, only 47% supported equality; and in 2007, 55% supported equality. That is, since 1985, only once, at the height of the intifada in 2003, were supporters of equality not in the majority.

The survey also indicates that if you take away the hostility stemming from the conflict, the citizens of Israel are characterized by support for civil equality far more than they can be characterized as apartheid supporters.

The Arabs of Israel, according to all sane and sensible measures, enjoy greater civil rights — far greater — than the population of any other country in the Middle East.

Just recently, a leading Arab website, Arab News, published an article by Abdoltif Al-Milham showing that reality. This important article, which attempted, among other things, to counter anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic falsehoods about Israel as an apartheid state, also received prominent billing in the second-largest Arab channel, Al Arabiya. But not to worry: Even if the world occasionally receives glimmers of the truth, Haaretz takes care to return the lies to center-stage. It will readily refute the reality with the help of a dubious survey that the paper fell on like a trophy.

The word “apartheid” has a meaning in international law. Its definition appears in Section 7 of the Statue of the International Criminal Court:

Murder; extermination; enslavement; deportation or forcible transfer of population; imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; torture; rape; sexual slavery; enforced prostitution; forced pregnancy; enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender…; enforced disappearance of persons…. in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.

Such crimes were never carried out in Israel, and Gideon Levy knows it. In a country where Arabs serve as doctors, professors, judges — in a country where they vote and are elected to the legislature – there is no apartheid. There are instances of discrimination, and one should fight against these, as in any other democratic country. Most people who answered the survey questions are not familiar with the definition of apartheid. Gideon Levy and Haaretz are supposed to know that. But they chose to cast Israel as an apartheid state.

These are the facts. You can add more surveys and other studies. Indeed, there are manifestations of discrimination; there are expressions of racism – as in all Western countries. And that’s a shame. If Haaretz had published true findings, it wouldn’t be worth a single word of criticism.

But Haaretz published this week one of the biggest manipulations in the history of incitement against Israel.

There is a solid Jewish majority that supports civil equality for Arabs. Just as important, there are polls showing that a majority of Israeli Arabs support Arab integration in the State of Israel — even when it is defined as a Jewish and democratic state. But these facts do not confuse those among us who breed hate. Far-right activist Baruch Marzel and Gideon Levy are not opponents. They are two sides of the same coin. One tries to create the impression that the Israeli Arabs are a fifth column; the second cultivates the canard that Israelis are racist supporters of apartheid.

Both are stirring anti-Israel discord and animosity among the nations.

In his commentary piece, Levy writes:

Let the right prove that this is not the way we are, that most Israelis want to live with Arabs. That most of them see Arabs as people like themselves, their equals in rights and opportunities.

There’s no need to be a rightist to read what it really says in the survey from which Levy is quoting. One need only know how to read. Here is what the survey says: 53% do not object to an Arab neighbor. Only a minority opposes the granting of rights. What exactly passed through this man’s mind to render him unable to read the survey he is reporting about?

There is more bad news for Levy: This year’s Democracy Index, which is put out by the Israel Democracy Institute, reveals that most Arabs do complain of discrimination. But they also think Israel is democratic enough; too democratic, even. Since this man appears to suffer from severe difficulties in reading comprehension, we’ll tell him this statistic appears on page 217. Here, Israeli Arabs can understand that discrimination is not apartheid, and that Israel is a democracy. But Gideon Levy? He is unable.

This revulsion against Israel is not a matter of a single piece or a single writer. This is the general line.

In a different article published this week, another major writer was furious about Romney and Obama’s avowal of support for Israel during the third presidential debate. He claimed that the US was a “crazy state” and compared the American administration to the most retrograde regimes in the world. According to that writer, the two candidates should actually have competed over who hated Israel more. His hand did not shake when he wrote words of incitement worthy of a Hamas newspaper — because this is Haaretz.

Haaretz is not representative of the left. Because there are two lefts: There’s a left that seeks peace, human rights and a democratic Jewish state; and there’s a left that embraces demonization. Haaretz occupies a place of honor in this second left. Out of 10 studies on Jewish attitudes toward Arab rights, Haaretz selected the most negligible, the most outlandish, and made a headline out of it. And as if that were not enough, Haaretz also distorted the results.

Today, we can look back and see how the image of the demonic Jew came into being: it took a systematic campaign of lies and brainwashing. One day the minister of history will deal with the same question: How was the image of a demonic Israel created? But there’s no need to wait for the far future. What was once done by the anti-Semitic right to the Jews is now being done by the anti-Zionist left to Israel. The difference between them, if it was not clear, is fading away.

Haaretz will of course argue that Levy’s is a legitimate “analysis.” The real question is whether such propaganda can be termed “journalism.” 

 

Vijftien duizend Israeli's herdenken Rabin in Tel aviv

 
Wat ik tegen Netanyahu heb?
Toen ik onderstaand artikel begon te lezen, en zag staan:
He added that in some ways public discourse and democracy were "in a worse place than they were 17 years ago."
Dacht ik: valt dat niet mee? Schreeuwde de rechtse oppositie destijds niet onder aanvoering van Bibi Netanyahu dat Rabin een verrader was, zoals hier ook Pim Fortuyn werd gedemoniseerd voordat een extremist dat ter harte nam en hem doodschoot? Ik dacht dat ik dat niet als opmerking kon schrijven, zonder eerst te verifiëren of Bibi echt zover was gegaan, maar verderop in hetzelfde artikel staat het zowaar:
...the rally in Jerusalem's Zion Square when Likud chairman Binyamin Netanyahu, then in the opposition, stood above a crowd in which many shouted, "Rabin is a traitor" and some held pictures of him in a kaffiyeh or wearing SS garb.
Laten we hopen dat zoiets nooit meer gebeurt....
 
Wouter
_____________
 

TA: Thousands attend annual memorial for Rabin

http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=289493

By BEN HARTMAN

10/27/2012 22:49

Some 15,000 people attend rally in Tel Aviv's Rabin Square to mark the 17th anniversary of former prime minister's assassination.

 

Around 15,000 people gathered in Tel Aviv's Rabin Square on Saturday night to mark the 17th anniversary of the death of prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, gunned down by an assassin following a rally in the same square on November 4, 1995.

This year's event was held beneath banners with the slogan "Remembering the murder – struggling for the democracy," and focused on preserving Israel's democracy and condemning "price-tag" attacks as well as other forms of political violence.

Related:

·        Editorial: Remembering Rabin

·        Rabin memorial canceled over groups' dispute

Uri Matuki of Dror Yisrael, one of the organizers of the rally, said the slogan was chosen earlier in the year, long before the unity deal between the Likud and Yisrael Beytenu was announced on Thursday night. The deal will unite Israel's largest right-wing party with Yisrael Beytenu, the party that advanced many of what some call "anti-democratic" bills in the current Knesset.

"We believe that 17 years after the murder, the lesson has not been learned. That is, that there are limits to what a democracy can accept. It's okay to argue, to fight about things, but decisions must always be made at the ballot box, and not through violence," Makuti said.

He added that in some ways public discourse and democracy were "in a worse place than they were 17 years ago."

The crowd on Saturday was dominated by teenage members of the Noar Ha'oved Ve'halomed and Hashomer Hatzair youth movements, bused in from branches around the country and clad in their trademark blue shirts.

As at every year's memorial rally, there were numerous signs and T-shirts for left-wing parties and movements, while those of the right-wing were absent. The rally also drew a large number of "tent protest" activists.

A video shown during the rally, while the crowd was called to stand to attention in memory of Rabin, featured right-wing demonstrations in the months proceeding his assassination, including the rally in Jerusalem's Zion Square when Likud chairman Binyamin Netanyahu, then in the opposition, stood above a crowd in which many shouted, "Rabin is a traitor" and some held pictures of him in a kaffiyeh or wearing SS garb.

The video also showed a series of shots of price-tag attacks on Arabs and Israelis over the past year, appearing to draw a link between the events leading up to the assassination and those of today.

Oded Hon, a 70-year-old resident of Tel Aviv, drew a fair amount of attention on Saturday night, walking through the crowd with a sign that read, "The right-wing murdered democracy."

Hon said he comes to the rally each year, but this is the first time he had brought a sign.

When asked why, he said, "Things have gotten out of hand the past year. If people don't speak out and take action, this government will continue to take more and more of their rights away."

When asked if the sign had anything to do with the Likud- Yisrael Beytenu deal announced last week, Hon said the unity deal was just another sign of where the government was heading, and that soon the public could expect more "antidemocratic" laws, such as those pushed forward in the current Knesset by Yisrael Beytenu and the Likud.

Rabbi Danny Hershberg, head of the Bnei Akiva national-religious youth movement, spoke at Saturday's rally. He called the Rabin murder a low point in the history of the Jewish people.

Hershberg issued a call for brotherhood between the secular- Zionist Left and national-religious Zionism.

Hershberg also criticized pricetag operations carried out by settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank and Arabs in Israel, and criticized "those who throw rocks at IDF soldiers, not only at [West Bank] outposts, but also at [left-wing protests against the West Bank security barrier in] Bil'in."

Members of the Bnei Akiva movement lashed out at Hershberg over his agreement to speak at the rally.

In a letter to Hershberg, Pinchas Michaeli, the head of the Bnei Akiva branch in the Itamar settlement, wrote of "the deep shock and sadness" caused in the movement by Hershberg's decision, adding that "Yitzhak Rabin as prime minister worked, advanced and strove to create an Arab entity which works tirelessly to destroy the State of Israel."

"There is no place whatsoever, even out of a desire to feel part of the Jewish people, to take part in a ceremony where they glorify the name, work and legacy of someone who left only one legacy: national defeatism and the sacrifice of the 'victims of peace' on the altar of Oslo," he added.

Hershberg wrote in response to the letter, "The reason for the ceremony is [Rabin's] murder, but the topic is how to manage dispute within society, along with an unequivocal call to struggle for the preservation of democracy."

Other speakers included former education minister and Labor MK Yuli Tamir, Rabbi Avi Gisser of the West Bank settlement of Ofra, and poet Haim Gouri.

Saturday's rally came two days after the NGO, November Fourth (the date of Rabin's murder on the Gregorian calendar), decided to cancel the memorial rally it had scheduled for November 3, largely due to a desire to avoid friction with the organizers of Saturday's rally.

 

maandag 29 oktober 2012

'De Israëliërs zijn het zat, ze geloven niet meer in vrede'

 

Een van de weinige interviews in Trouw met iemand die het voor Israel opneemt, vooraf gegaan door een interview met criticus Norman Finkelstein en gevolgd door een interview met Yehuda Shaul, oprichter van Breaking the Silence, een organisatie van ex-militairen die de bezetting hekelt. Oh, en er was ook nog een artikel over Richard Falk, de radikaal-antizionistische VN rapporteur die nu voor een boycot pleit, en de Israelische represailles op zo'n 70 raketten vorige week werden vermeld zonder die raketten te noemen, en zonder te vermelden dat Israel uitsluitend strijders heeft gedood. 

 

RP
-------- 

 

'De Israëliërs zijn het zat, ze geloven niet meer in vrede'

http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4496/Buitenland/article/detail/3334144/2012/10/19/De-Israeliers-zijn-het-zat-ze-geloven-niet-meer-in-vrede.dhtml

Sander Becker − 19/10/12, 12:00

 

De Israëlische jurist en politiek commentator Mosje Negbi, even in Nederland, legt uit waarom de Israëliërs klaar zijn met de Palestijnse kwestie. De politiek houdt zich er nauwelijks nog mee bezig. En de meeste Israëliërs vinden het een veilig idee dat het leger de Westelijke Jordaanoever blijft bezetten.


Helaas maakte Trouw bezwaar tegen het kopiëren van dit interview. Zie daarom hiervoor de website van Trouw.

 

Breaking the Silence en het selectieve gehoor

 

Goed en genuanceerd stuk, maar juist daarom twijfel ik zelf wel steeds meer aan de goede bedoelingen van Breaking the Silence. Waarom komt Shaul in Nederland zijn verhaal vertellen over Israelisch wangedrag wanneer hij de Israelische samenleving een spiegel voor wil houden? Het valt me op dat veel kritische Israelische organisaties en activisten hun verhaal geregeld in Europese landen doen en ook door Europese landen mede gefinancierd worden. En voor velen hier bevestigt dit hun toch al eenzijdig negatieve beeld over Israel. 

 

RP

--------- 

 

Breaking the Silence en het selectieve gehoor

http://www.cijo.nl/2012/10/28/breaking-the-silence-en-het-selectieve-gehoor/  

28/10/2012 | CiJO

Door Joël Serphos

 

'Israel pest en doodt', zo luidde de titel van het artikel in Trouw dat het bezoek van Yehuda Shaul, oprichter van de Israelische mensenrechtenorganisatie Breaking the Silence, aankondigde. Of het een ongelukkige keuze was van de redactie, of een doelbewuste poging om lezers te trekken met misleidende sensatie weet ik niet, maar de kop had weinig te maken met de belangrijke boodschap die Breaking the Silence tracht te verspreiden.

 

Breaking the Silence werd acht jaar geleden opgericht door Israelische veteranen, met het doel getuigenissen vast te leggen van soldaten die in de bezette gebieden hebben gediend. De organisatie benadert veteranen met de vraag of ze bereid zijn hun ervaringen vast te leggen, opdat ze de Israelische samenleving een spiegel voor kunnen houden: de Israelische samenleving is zich onvoldoende bewust van de dagelijkse realiteit in de bezette gebieden. Vanzelfsprekend levert dit in Israel gemengde reacties op. In sommige kringen wordt de organisatie uitgekotst, in andere geprezen. Pro-Palestijnse groepen in het Westen ontvangen Yehuda Shaul cum suis maar al te graag, maar of deze gastheren hetzelfde doel nastreven valt sterk te betwijfelen.

 

Het verhaal van Yehuda Shaul is bijzonder en tegelijkertijd herkenbaar voor velen. Hij groeide op in een rechts-orthodox milieu, ging op zijn achttiende het leger in en diende – zoals gebruikelijk voor Israelische mannen – voor een periode van drie jaar, in zijn geval voor een groot deel op de Westelijke Jordaanoever. In tegenstelling tot veel van zijn lotgenoten, stelden hij en een aantal vrienden vast dat wat zij meemaakten aandacht verdient in de vorm van een maatschappelijk debat. De bezetting van de Westoever gaat gepaard met ernstige misdaden en het werd tijd dat Israeliërs zich daar bewust van werden.

 

De getuigenissen van een aantal ex-soldaten dat zich bereid heeft getoond om mee te werken zijn indrukwekkend. Soldaten vertellen hoe ze op basis van complete willekeur meewerken aan de intimidatie van Palestijnen om hun machtspositie te consolideren (in militair jargon spreken we vandeterrence) en bevelen opvolgden die onmogelijk passen in het concept van preventie, althans, niet in enge zin. Shaul noemt de extreme inflatie van het preventieconcept als een van de trieste gevolgen van 45 jaar bezetting. Te weinig Israeliërs realiseren zich dat het massaal en willekeurig arresteren van Palestijnen – een uiting van ordinair spierballenvertoon zoals we dat van het Midden-Oosten gewend zijn – misschien niet leidt tot Palestijnse loyaliteit, maar op termijn tot grootschalig verzet.

 

Wat Breaking the Silence vaststelt is gegrond. Macht corrumpeert en de realiteit van de Israelische bezetting is haast een logisch gevolg van de vele tientallen jaren waarin de militaire bezetting de tijd heeft gehad zichzelf te nestelen. Gerichte acties worden met de tijd minder gericht en ontaarden in complete willekeur in het kader van de veiligheid, vaak zonder dat de de grondsoldaten die het vuile werk moeten doen zich hiervan bewust zijn. In de getuigenissen komt duidelijk naar voren dat de soldaten ervan overtuigd zijn dat hun werk (uiteindelijk) een nobel doel dient: het beschermen van Israelische burgers.

 

Toch wordt Yehuda Shaul in veel gevallen heus niet uitgenodigd omdat 'Pro-Palestijns' Nederland de intentie heeft om een morele discussie binnen de Israelische samenleving – en in het bijzonder het militaire apparaat – te ontketenen. Getuigenissen worden misbruikt, selectief en contextloos geciteerd om te bewijzen dat Israel een schurkenstaat is. Voor deze activisten is Shauls spiegel van geen enkele betekenis: de citaten van Israelische soldaten vormen een perfect middel om aan te tonen hoe gruwelijk en imperialistisch Israel is. Veel Israelische veteranen zijn zich hiervan bewust: ze willen hun medeburgers graag vertellen wat ze hebben meegemaakt, maar willen hun woorden niet laten misbruiken door anti-Israelfanatici die de staat Israel maar al te graag zien verdwijnen.

 

In het publiek zat een jongen die een tijdje geleden had deelgenomen aan een door Breaking the Silence georganiseerde tour door de Westoever. Zijn vraag was tekenend: hij vroeg Yehuda Shaul of hij het eens was met zijn analyse dat Israel bezig is met een langzame, systematische etnische zuivering. Wie een redelijk aantal getuigenissen met volle aandacht heeft beluisterd, weet dat dit noch een logische conclusie is uit de getuigenissen, noch de overtuiging  van de organisatie. Geen enkele vertegenwoordiger zal een poging doen om er gebruikelijke labels als 'etnische zuivering', 'expansiedrift' of 'concentratiekamp' op te plakken. Maar deze jongen hoorde precies wat hij wilde horen. Door af en toe een citaatje over te nemen en met een valse agenda anekdotische selecties te maken uit de getuigenissen, is het bijzonder makkelijk om het werk van Breaking the Silence te misbruiken en Israel zogenaamd te ontmaskeren als een intrinsiek kwaadaardige entiteit. Spijtig, daar deze realiteit het voor tegenstanders alleen maar makkelijker maakt om aan te tonen dat Breaking the Silence een gevaarlijke organisatie is die anti-Israelische propaganda op grote schaal faciliteert.

 

Ik ben blij dat een organisatie als Breaking the Silence de vrijheid heeft om haar werk in alle veiligheid te doen. Als geen ander is zij in staat om Israeliërs bewust te maken van de morele corrumpering die een dergelijke bezetting onvermijdelijk teweegbrengt. Wat voor veel Israeliërs ten westen van de veiligheidsbarrière onduidelijk is, namelijk dat de bezetting onhoudbaar is geworden en dat geweld en onderdrukking  noodzakelijkerwijs voortvloeien uit het zo krampachtig willen vasthouden aan die gebieden, weten zij met ontroerende getuigenissen dichterbij te brengen. Toch zou Breaking the Silence zich af moeten vragen of een groot deel van haar internationale publiek die boodschap wel aan kan. De feiten die de organisatie aan de kaak stelt zijn van groot belang om het Israelische electoraat bewust te maken van de vooruitzichtloze status quo in de bezette gebieden. Het voeden van de vele anti-Israelfanatici en hun dubieuze overtuigingen zal de totstandkoming van een rechtvaardige oplossing echter geen stap dichterbij brengen.

 

De inhoud van dit opiniestuk weerspiegelt de mening van de auteur, niet noodzakelijkerwijs die van CiJO.

 

zaterdag 27 oktober 2012

Plaats Hezbollah op EU-lijst van terreurgroepen

 

Iedereen kan tegenwoordig op Avaaz petities beginnen om de wereld te verbeteren, en dit is de tweede petitie die we aantroffen van Israel-vrienden; de vorige was vrij snel verwijderd door het Avaaz bestuur. Deze loopt nog niet zo hard, en is wellicht daarom tot dusver aan de aandacht ontsnapt, of men heeft er dit keer geen bezwaren tegen. (De kleine lettertjes vermelden dat de petitie op goedkeuring wacht.)

 

Hezbollah zou recentelijk ook betrokken zijn bij de gevechten in Syrië, aan de zijde van Assad.

 

_______________

 

http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Add_Hezbollah_to_EU_Terror_list/

Add Hezbollah to EU Terror list

This petition is awaiting approval by the Avaaz Community

 

188 signers. Let's reach 200

Why this is important

Hezbollah has conducted terrible acts of terrorism on Western targets in recent decades, Given the unrelenting and lethal activities of Hezbollah, we urge the EU to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.
EU member countries have suffered the tragic consequences of Hezbollah violence, supported by Iran, Hezbollah's founder and principal supporter.

 

vrijdag 26 oktober 2012

Enquête: Meeste Arabieren willen in Israël wonen


Opmerkelijke enquête: Meeste Arabieren willen in Israël wonen

·        http://joodsactueel.be/2012/06/22/opmerkelijke-enquete-meeste-arabieren-willen-in-israel-wonen/

·        Vrijdag 22 Juni 2012 19:45 

 

 Een nieuw onderzoek bevestigt dat de meeste de Arabische inwoners van Israël zich niet als 'onderdrukt' en 'levend onder apartheid' beschouwen. In feite zouden slechts weinigen ervoor kiezen om ergens anders te wonen.

De Palestijnse Autoriteit, de internationale media en zelfs de gekozen Israëlisch-Arabische politici proberen allemaal het leven van de Arabische minderheid in Israël af te schilderen als zijnde onderdrukkd, net zoals de zwarte Afrikanen ondervonden tijdens de Apartheid in dit land. Maar telkens blijkt dat de feiten hun theorie niet steunen.

Het meest sprekende is wat de Israëlische Arabieren zelf hierover vertellen. In een jaarlijkse opiniepeiling die de Universiteit van Haifa deze week publiceerde, bleek alweer dat een duidelijke meerderheid (68,3%) van hen liever in Israël woont dan in enig ander land in de wereld. 71 procent van de Arabische respondenten noemde Israël alleen "een goede plek om te wonen", terwijl 60 procent het land ook als "vaderland" omschreef.

Paradoxaal genoeg gaven 80 procent van de respondenten de Joden de schuld gaf voor de 'Nakba', de 'ramp' van de moderne wedergeboorte van Israël, hoewel 60 procent zei dat ze nu Israël aanvaarden als Joodse staat. Bijna een zelfde percentage heeft er geen bezwaar tegen dat de openbare instellingen en het karakter van het land worden bepaald door het Jodendom.

Reden tot zorg
Er is de laatste tijd meer geprobeerd om de jongere generatie van de Israëlische Arabieren te radicaliseren. Velen hebben alle pogingen om hen te werven voor radicale ideologieën afgewezen, maar een groeiende minderheid is aanhanger geworden van het Palestijns nationalisme.

19 procent van de Arabische respondenten zei dat Israël geen bestaansrecht had, dit was slechts 11 procent in 2003. En terwijl nog steeds 57 procent zei dat ze een referendum, dat Israël definieert als een Joodse staat zouden steunen, was dat nog 70 procent in het onderzoek van 2006.

Een aantal politici zeggen dat deze trend voor een deel te wijten is aan de overheid en dat meer moet worden gedaan om jonge Arabieren te integreren in de Israëlische samenleving.

'Eén dezer dagen zal het de Israëlische politici duidelijk worden, dat de belangrijkste uitdaging voor het land, ernstiger dan het vredesproces met zijn buren, is het integreren van de grote Arabische minderheid in het weefsel van de samenleving', schreef oud-minister van Defensie Moshe Arens in 2010 in de Israëlische krant Ha'aretz.

Ryan Jones, berichtgeving Israeltoday

 

Likoed en Yisrael Beitenu fuseren

 

Netanyahu lijkt op deze manier ervan verzekerd de grootste partij te blijven en dus weer premier te kunnen worden; Lieberman zag zijn partij in de peilingen dalen en toont zich nu tevreden met de positie van nummer twee. In Nederland zou zoiets ondenkbaar zijn, en het noodlijdende CDA heeft bijvoorbeeld nog niet bij de VVD aangeklopt met het voorstel te fuseren. Me dunkt ook dat de achterbannen van Yisrael Beiteinu en Likoed wel erg van elkaar verschillen, en ook de partij programma’s. Likoed is een centrum rechtse partij die niet principieel tegen concessies is (Netanyahu zegt zelfs de tweestatenoplossing te steunen), maar wel veel nadruk legt op veiligheid en goede kontakten heeft met de kolonisten. Yisrael Beiteinu is een radikale partij, meer nog in de opstelling en provocerende woorden van Lieberman dan in het partijprogramma, en is fel anti-Arabisch. Vooral het ondiplomatieke gedrag van Lieberman als minister van buitenlandse zaken heeft Israel veel goodwill gekost in het buitenland, en deze fusie zal het er voor Israel in de diplomatieke arena niet makkelijker op maken. Hopelijk komen ook centrum en links met een gezamelijke lijst om te voorkomen dat het nieuwe Likoed Beiteinu de volgende regering gaat vormen.  

 

Zie voor een analyse ook: http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=289356

 

RP

------------- 

 

Netanyahu, Liberman announce Likud, Yisrael Beytenu uniting

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=289334

By LAHAV HARKOV, MELANIE LIDMAN, HERB KEINON

10/25/2012 20:19

PM, FM say parties to run together for 19th Knesset; Netanyahu advisor says Liberman will not prevent PM from continuing to call for resumption of peace talks; Yacimovich, Mofaz call for Center to unite forces.

The Likud and Yisrael Beytenu will run together for the 19th Knesset, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman announced on Thursday night.

In a brief press conference at a Jerusalem hotel, Netanyahu and Liberman refused to answer any questions regarding the order of the candidates on the joint Knesset list, but a Likud source said Netanyahu would be first, followed by Liberman, then two Likud MKs, followed by a member of Yisrael Beytenu.

Both parties denied that the foreign minister and the prime minister would have a rotation for the top spot, saying that Netanyahu would lead Israel for 10 more years.

“We are ahead of difficult challenges and it is time to unite powers for the State of Israel,” Netanyahu said. “One ticket will strengthen the government, it will strengthen the prime minister, and it will strengthen the country.

“We are asking the public for a mandate to deal with the security threats, at the top of which is stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and fighting terrorism. We are asking for a mandate from the public to continue the changes in the economy, in education and in the need to lower the cost of living,” the prime minister said.

Netanyahu thanked Liberman, who is also the chairman of Yisrael Beytenu, for putting his “personal considerations” aside for the good of the country.

Liberman credited the stability of the coalition for allowing the current government to last for four years.

“We are not like the fashionable parties that are created for one term, we are a true party that will allow the government to deal with challenges in the best way possible,” he said.

“This coalition was the most stable in recent years and maybe even since ’48.”

A poll conducted by Liberman’s campaign adviser, Arthur Finkelstein, said the joint list would get 51 seats in the 19th Knesset. Currently, the two parties combined have 42 MKs.

Netanyahu’s merger with Liberman’s party, and the likelihood that Liberman will now be the No. 2 man in the joint list, will undoubtedly raise eyebrows in capitals around the world as to whether Netanyahu is still committed to the diplomatic process with President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority.

In the past, Netanyahu’s advisers distanced Netanyahu from Liberman’s stance on these issues, saying that the foreign minister was only speaking for himself and his party.

For the past few months, Liberman has waged a campaign against Abbas, saying there will be no agreement with the Palestinians while he is still in power and that the PA president is engaging in “diplomatic terrorism.”

Immediately after Thursday’s dramatic announcement, an adviser to Netanyahu said the prime minister continues to call for a resumption of peace talks with the PA without preconditions.

“Netanyahu hopes that in his third term this will be possible,” the adviser said. “He is ready for a discussion of all the core issues with the Palestinians, and is ready to engage with Abbas.”

Related:

·        'Post' poll: 'Center-Left mega-party' would beat PM

·        Olmert, Livni to cooperate, whether they run or not

The adviser said that Liberman did not prevent Netanyahu from being willing to engage with Abbas in the past – an offer Abbas did not accept – and would not prevent him from doing so in the future.

The adviser said the merger could actually lead to a less strident tone on the Palestinian issue in the election campaign, since the Likud and Yisrael Beytenu would not be competing for the same voters, and therefore would not have to outdo themselves in their rhetoric.

Just as there were currently differences inside the Likud as to the best approach to the diplomatic process – such as between MKs Danny Danon and Tzipi Hotovely on one side, and Intelligence Agencies Minister Dan Meridor and Government Services Minister Michael Eitan on the other – so too would there be differences between Liberman and Netanyahu on these issues, the adviser said.

Meanwhile, Likud ministers expressed those differences of opinion on the unity deal.

Education Minister Gideon Sa’ar, a close ally of Netanyahu, said the deal “will sharpen the argument between Right and Left, but beyond that, it has the potential to significantly strengthen our ability to govern and deal with great challenges ahead of Israel. We will be able to make changes in the government system and in equality in the burden of national service.”

Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin said the large united list would reduce pressures caused by sectorial parties.

Culture and Sport Minister Limor Livnat insisted that the Likud would continue to keep its own values, and not adopt those of Yisrael Beytenu, but the move would increase the government’s stability.

Eitan called for the Likud central committee to reject the union, calling it “the end of Likud and a threat to Israeli democracy.

“The liberal tradition of [former prime minister] Menachem Begin and [Likud ideological forbearer] Ze’ev Jabotinsky is over,” Eitan said. “This deal will bring extremism.”

Meanwhile, Labor chairwoman Shelly Yacimovich and Kadima chairman Shaul Mofaz called for the center of the political map to unite forces.

“What happened tonight shows the power in this election.

Netanyahu could tell that he was going to lose his job, and took a step inspired by political panic due to Labor’s strength,” Yacimovich said. “This step turns the Likud into Liberman’s party. Tonight Likud disappeared and instead there’s an extreme Liberman party.”

Mofaz proclaimed, “This is a wake-up call for the entire Center to unite and put ego aside. The Likud and Yisrael Beytenu formed an extremist party that has no hope.”

According to former Kadima chairwoman Tzipi Livni, it is now clear that this election is about “the future, image and values of the State of Israel, and a choice between an extreme, isolated country or a sane, Zionist one.

“I was born in the Likud. I know what values it was supposed to represent and abandoned,” she added. “The choice should not be between extremes, but between the extreme and the Zionist Center, which believes in a Jewish, democratic and balanced Israel.”

Yesh Atid party chairman Yair Lapid said the Labor party has been shifting farther to the extreme Left, and the new deal with Liberman pushes Likud to the extreme Right, ending the days of “the Likud of Menachem Begin.”

Lapid also said it was a loss for the country’s majority, the middle of the road Israelis.

Shas said the Netanyahu- Liberman union made choices easier for voters.

“Now it is clear to all that only one family is concerned about the weaker members of society and our Jewish tradition,” a party spokesman said. “In the next election, whoever cares about the Jewish identity of the State of Israel and the prevention of economic decrees against the weaker sector has only one address: A strong, united Shas,” the party said.

Yonah Jeremy Bob contributed to this report.

 

donderdag 25 oktober 2012

'Wapenstilstand Israël en Gaza'

'Wapenstilstand Israël en Gaza'

donderdag 25 oktober 2012 | 05:42 | Laatst bijgewerkt op: donderdag 25 oktober 2012 | 08:32

GAZA - Israël en gewapende Palestijnse groepen in Gaza zijn met behulp van Egypte een staakt-het-vuren overeengekomen. Een anonieme Palestijnse bron meldde aan persbureau AFP dat de wapenstilstand donderdagochtend is ingegaan.

Beide partijen vuurden al sinds woensdagavond geen wapens meer af. De overeenkomst volgt na 2 dagen vol geweld dat het leven kostte aan enkele Palestijnse militanten. Vanuit de Gazastrook vuurden militanten meer dan 70 raketten af op het zuiden van Israël. Daardoor raakten enkele mensen in Israël gewond.

De Israëlische minister van Defensie Ehud Barak liet weten dat Israël de Palestijnse beweging Hamas, die de macht heeft in Gaza, zal straffen voor de raketaanvallen. Volgens hem zijn dit jaar al 600 raketten en mortiergranaten op Israël afgeschoten vanuit het Palestijnse gebied.

 

 

woensdag 24 oktober 2012

Escalatie rond Gazastrook: Israeli's gewond en Palestijnse terroristen gedood

 
Bijna 80 raketten en mortieren werden vandaag vanuit Gaza op Israel afgevuurd, waarmee de situatie lijkt te escaleren.
 
Begin oktober werden er op 1 dag 55 raketten en mortieren op Israel afgevuurd, en sindsdien is het nauwelijks een dag rustig geweest. Bovendien zou twee weken geleden voor het eerst een Israelische helicopter beschoten zijn met een anti-aircraft raket, wellicht de aanleiding dat de Israelische luchtmacht besloot vorige week Hamas centra te bombarderen. In verschillende gerichte aanvallen zijn een aantal terroristen omgekomen de afgelopen dagen. Een Israelische soldaat raakte ernstig gewond door een bermbom bij het Gaza hek, en verschillende burgers zijn door de raketregen gewond geraakt.
 
Hamas en de PRC claimen deels verantwoordelijkheid voor de raketten.
 
Wouter
__________
 

2 badly hurt in ongoing rocket attack on south

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4296217,00.html

Three foreign workers injured, two seriously, in Eshkol Regional Council as more than 50 rockets, mortars hit south. Several houses suffer direct hits. Iron Dome intercepts several rockets. IAF strikes Gaza

Ynet reporters

Latest Update: 

10.24.12, 08:31 / Israel News

Three foreign workers at the Eshkol Regional Council were injured on Wednesday in an ongoing rocket attack on southernIsrael. Two of the three sustained serious wounds and one sustained light wounds. They were rushed to the Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba.

 

A woman residing at the Hof Ashkelon Regional Council was lightly wounded after running to a shelter. She was taken to the Barzilai Medical Center in Ashkelon.

 

Related stories:

 

More than 50 rockets and mortar shells fired from the Gaza Strip hit southern Israel since Tuesday night, 30 of them at the Eshkol area. Five houses suffered a direct hit. 

 

The Iron Dome system intercepted seven rockets fired at Hof Ashkelon.

 

Hamas' military wing and the Popular Resistance Committees have both claimed responsibility for the rocket attack.  

  

School has been suspended at the Eshkol, Shaar Hanegev and Sdot Negev regional councils and residents were instructed to remain inside fortified spaces.

 

Home Front Defense Minister Avi Dichter may cut his Eilat visit as part of the Turning Point 6 drill short in order to attend situation assessments in the Gaza vicinity area in the wake of Wednesday's escalation.

 

The army launched several airstrikes in Gaza since Tuesday night in response to rocket fire. The IDF Spokesperson's Unit said that Air Force jets attacked a terrorist cell in the southern Gaza Strip at 6 am, immediately after it had fired a rocket on Wednesday morning.

 

The firing began at 4:45 am. Six rockets were fired at the Eshkol and Sdot Negev regional councils. Earlier, three rockets exploded in open areas in Sdot Negev and Shaar Hanegev. At about 6:30 am a third barrage saw four rockets exploding in open areas at the Eshkol Regional Council.

 

At around midnight, the IAF thwarted the firing of rockets in an airstrike in the northern Gaza Strip. The Palestinians reported that two people were killed and others were injured.

 

Earlier, the army targeted a terrorist cell firing rockets from Beit Lahia. Palestinian sources said that one person had been killed – a member of Hamas' military wing - and three were injured.

 

Meanwhile, the condition of a Givati company commander, Captain Ziv Shilon, who sustained moderate wounds on Tuesday after being hit by explosives at the border fence, has stabilized.

 

Shilon had lost one arm. He is hospitalized at the Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba.

 

The escalation in the south follows the historic visit of Qatari ruler Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani in Gaza on Tuesday. Al Thani was the first head of state to visit Gaza since Hamas seized control of the Strip five years ago.

 

Neri Brener, Ilana Curiel and Elior Levy contributed to this report