Saoedische columnisten bekritiseren Iran, Syrië en Hezbollah

Niet alleen zionisten en neo-conservatieven in de VS beweren dat Iran terroristen in Irak steunt, en Hezbollah Syrische en Iraanse belangen dient.

 

Terwijl zogenaamde Midden-Oosten deskundigen als de propagandist Robert Soeterick volhouden dat Hezbollah een autonome Libanese beweging is en we ons over Iran vooral geen zorgen moeten maken, weten deze Saoedische columnisten wel beter.

Ratna
-------------------------------

Inquiry & Analysis-Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Lebanon
September 18, 2007
No. 390

Saudi Columnists Criticize Iran, Syria, Hizbullah

By H.Varulkar*

Introduction

In recent weeks, Saudi columnists have published numerous columns harshly critical of Iran, Syria, and Hizbullah. The columns warned of the demographic change that Iran is promoting in Lebanon and condemned Hizbullah for its willingness to sacrifice Lebanon for the sake of Syrian and Iranian interests. Syria was criticized for submitting blindly to Iranian directives, and was accused of being behind the assassination of Lebanese leaders in the past three decades, including that of former prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri.

In addition, the Saudi daily Al-Watan reported that documents recently discovered by Iraqi sources reveal the extent to which Iranian elements have infiltrated Iraq's government institutions, parliament, and security apparatuses. The documents show that 108 activists from Iran's Al-Quds Forces, which belong to the Revolutionary Guards, have managed to attain key positions in Iraq's defense and interior ministries.(1)

The following are excerpts from the columns:


Iran is Leading Geographic and Demographic Change in Lebanon

In an article in the London daily Al-Hayat, Saudi columnist Hussein Shubakshi wrote:(2) "Exorbitant sums of money are being transferred from Iran to Hizbullah, at an unprecedented rate, for purchasing land and real estate. This has become the talk of the day among leaders and among everyone involved in real estate.

"Most of the lands and real estate are passing into the hands [of the Shi'ites], giving them control over southern Lebanon and the Beqa' Valley, so that Hizbullah will eventually control the majority of the lands adjoining the Syrian border. [However], this new finding was not the last surprise [in store for us]. It was recently published, in a series of reports, that the Lebanese government has discovered a secret network of 3G mobile phones owned exclusively by Hizbullah(3) and unsupervised by the state or by the relevant government office.

"This increase in precisely [targeted] strategic land acquisition is motivated by Iran's aspirations to create a continuous stretch of regions under its influence, which spans southern Lebanon, the Beqa' Valley, Syria, and Iraq, reaching as far as Iran... As for [Hizbullah's private] telephone network, it proves once again that the idea of a state within a state, which Hizbullah has been entertaining of late, is very much alive. It goes without saying that [Hizbullah's] objective is to weaken the central government and then come out against it...

"New borders are being charted in the area... The world is watching the creation of new borders on Lebanese soil, circumscribing southern Lebanon and the Beqa' Valley, and spilling over to the rest of the country.  What sparks worry and suspicion – to say the least – is that, while numerous changes are being made in southern Lebanon and the Beqa' Valley, people are being deceived that [the aim of these developments] is to liberate the Shaba' Farms. With [the increased] geographic and demographic changes in southern Lebanon and the Beqa' Valley, the Iranian presence in the cultural arena and in communications has intensified – and the future looks much more ominous..."(4)


Nasrallah to Syria and Iran: I Am at Your Service!

In the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, editor Tareq Al-Humaid criticized Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, saying: "A report published in this paper a couple of days ago stated that Nasrallah had returned the house he had been renting to its owners and moved to an unknown location, as part of the plan to rebuild Dhahiya [the Hizbullah neighborhood in southern Beirut], which had been destroyed in the Israeli attack on Lebanon during the war... If only Mr. Nasrallah would be consistent and give Lebanon back to its people - in other words, [if only] Lebanon were subject to the Lebanese agenda, and not to that of Iran and Syria...

"Hizbullah relied on the high standing of the resistance in Lebanon, and on Lebanon's liberation, but it wasted this potential and found itself face to face with Lebanese civilians. [It is quite understandable, then,] that the casualties of the last war numbered 1,200 Lebanese civilians, not to mention the damage to the property. Today Hizbullah wants to bury Lebanon under its 'abaya [traditional Muslim cloak], disregarding Lebanon's [ethnic] diversity.

"...Lebanon wants Syria to leave its territory, and to return via diplomatic relations by [exchanging] ambassadors... Lebanon wants Iran to obey the geographic [constraints] and remain within its natural borders, instead of treating Beirut as a card to be used in its political conflicts and [to fulfill] its aspirations of spreading the Islamic revolution... [At such a time,] Nasrallah acts like a genie which has escaped from its bottle [as in the story of Aladdin], and which keeps assuring Syria and Iran, 'I am at your service! I am at your service!'"...(5)


Syria Has Become a Dagger Thrust by Iran into the Heart of the Arab Nation

An August 18, 2007 article in the Saudi daily 'Okaz criticized the Syria-Iran alliance, stating: "The Saudi kingdom is voicing concern on behalf of all the Arabs at Syria's new role in the region, and at the change of its historical role from being an Arab [country] in the heart of its Arab homeland to [being part of] a bizarre alliance with a regional element [i.e. Iran] which does not conceal its aspirations [to promote] its [own] interests at the expense of the Arabs – so much so that Syria has practically become a dagger thrust by this regional element into [the heart of] the Arab nation!

"The entire Arab world is concerned at the paralysis that has afflicted Syria, [a country] which used to lead Arab unity and the defense of Arab national interests. Even more worrying to the Arab world is [the possibility] that this paralysis might be exported to Syria's neighboring [countries]! The Saudi kingdom has always been able to overcome the hurts in its political relations with other [elements], and it is not asking for policy advice from someone who is under regional and international isolation [i.e. Syria]. Saudi Arabia will remain the throbbing heart of the Arab homeland, pumping blood into all Arab arteries, including the beloved Syria – even if there are some who want to change the layout of these arteries..."(6)


Syria-Iran Relations – From Alliance to Blind Obedience

Saudi columnist for Al-Sharq Al-Awsat Mashari Al-Dhaidi wrote: "The Syria-Saudi dispute has now come into the open. Something that used to be whispered is now spoken about out loud, since the disagreement between Damascus and Riyadh is over policy and viewpoint. Indeed, the Syrian regime of the Bashar Al-Assad era has, strategically, tied [itself] irrevocably to Tehran's fundamentalist regime – so much so that it has become a link between Iran's island in Lebanon, i.e. Hizbullah, and the source of weapons, funding, and guidance located in Iran...

"Is Damascus still 'the throbbing heart of the Arab entity'?! Or has this heart become entrapped in a crisis?... One should remember Syria's central role in the birth, fostering, and support of the idea of pan-Arabism... The banners of pan-Arabism and the discourse of Arab unity were characteristic features of Syrian political scene for years on end. The battles between the sides in the political game were fought over the question of 'who is more faithful to the Arab and pan-Arab national identity?!' Many years elapsed, until the current president, Bashar Al-Assad, the son of Hafez, came to power, and the situation changed. [The problem] is not Bashar's close relations with Iran... Indeed, his father, Hafez Al-Assad, was also on good terms with Iran, even at the peak of the Iran-Iraq war... [Rather, the problem is that] Assad senior, while flying the banner of pan-Arabism with one hand, was always upholding the interests of his regime...

"During the era of Assad junior... Damascus-Tehran relations have changed from alliance to blind obedience...  The Iranians have found their way into Syria, which is obvious from the size of Iran's diplomatic mission in Damascus, numbering hundreds of officials! There has been perpetual talk of political campaigns aimed at persuading [the Syrians] to become Shi'ites... There has also been widespread talk of another strange phenomenon in Syrian society - namely, more and more women are joining the Qubaisiat order... that is, a Shafi'ite Sunni order of Sufi leanings, popular among women inside and outside Syria. The movement's headquarters, which are located in Damascus, instruct Syrian women in extremist ways that reject the legacy of openness and enlightenment in which Syrian women are brought up...

"So, to which identity will the Syrian regime adhere in the future? While its foreign policy is definitely Shi'ite, on the domestic arena – in its very viscera – there is a turbulent Sunni fundamentalist movement, sowing terror [all around]... In addition, we are witnessing a proliferation of Shi'ites in Al-Raqqa and other Syrian provinces, to such an extent that it troubles the Sunni sheikhs in Syria, who have announced their protest.

"What, then, remains of the Syrian belief in the national Arab and pan-Arab [ideology]: Is Syria's heart still beating?!... And last but not least, [Farouq Al-Shar'] emerges to preach and lecture to us on pan-Arabism?!..."(7)


Syria – The Regime of Assassinations and Massacres

A special investigative article, published August 22, 2007 on the Saudi daily 'Okaz, accused the Syrian regime of being behind the assassination of Lebanese leaders in the last 30 years, and called it a "regime of assassinations and massacres":

"What is preferable for Lebanon: to be independent of Syria and, [as a result], have its security and the lives [of its citizens] imperiled, or to submit to Syria and enjoy some peace and quiet? [This is the choice] that the Syrian Ba'th regime has forced on all the Lebanese, both in the coalition and in the opposition, ever since the passing of [U.N.] Resolution 1559 of 2004, which demanded the Syrian army's immediate withdrawal from Lebanon. The first [move] by the Syrian regime [following the resolution] was to extend the term of office of [Lebanese] President Emile Lahoud. Then came the attempted assassination of Minister Marwan Hamada, intended to [prevent] Rafiq Al-Hariri from heading the new government, and after that came the assassination of Rafiq Al-Hariri himself, on February 14, 2005...

"Ever since, the [Syrian] 'death squads' have been pursuing the enemies of the Syrian regime in Lebanon and murdering them one by one, at critical [junctures] and with obvious goals. The common denominator shared by all [the victims] is the small tactical benefit [that the Syrian regime gained from each assassination] – for instance, from silencing the courageous journalist Samir Qasir, the [murder] of the well-known Communist [leader] George Hawi, the assassination of Minister Elias Al-Murr, the attempt to intimidate the leading [Lebanese] TV [channel] LBC by targeting one of its journalists, May Chidiac, and  the assassination of [Lebanese] MP Jubran Tweini, director-general of Lebanon's first daily Al-Nahar. Then came the murder of Pierre Gemayel, in a special operation aimed at toppling the Al-Siniora government, and finally the murder of [Lebanese] MP Walid 'Ido, in an attempt to demonstrate that the [international] tribunal cannot protect Lebanon.

"Syria was forced to withdraw its armed forces from Lebanon in April 2005... but since then, it has been [trying to] show Lebanon and others that it [still] has significant influence over this country, and that [Lebanon] can find salvation only with Syria's [help], and not without it. The Syrian regime – which for the past 30 years has made a habit of systematically – and with impunity – murdering Lebanese leaders, beginning with Druze leader Kamal Jumblatt, has not yet grasped the [full implications] of the terrible shock caused by the murder of [former Lebanese prime minister] Rafiq Al-Hariri. Since its aim is to control Lebanon, the sectarian affiliation [of the victims] was never an important consideration in the assassinations, and leaders from all the ethnic groups in Lebanon were killed..."(8)


Al-Manar TV is [Morally] Bankrupt

In another column, Saudi columnist Hussein Al-Shoubakshi condemned Hizbullah's TV channel Al-Manar for reporting, on August 15, 2007, that the Saudi Embassy in Lebanon had known that Israel was planning to attack Lebanon in July 2006 and had evacuated its citizens from the country.(9) Al-Shoubakshi wrote: "In some third-world countries, the role of the media is to preserve a certain myth – sometimes even by lying in every possible way and regardless of the cost... Today, it seems that the Lebanese channel Al-Manar, which is part of the Hizbullah's propaganda network... has completely lost its bearings and is now operating as one of the Hizbullah's propaganda [tools]. The resistance [movement, i.e. Hizbullah] seems to have changed direction, [relinquishing] the confrontation with Israel, which was its well-known and self-proclaimed [goal], and turning against the Arab countries that are supporting and assisting Lebanon, upholding its independence, and protecting it from the infiltration of non-Lebanese elements.

"Al-Manar's report about the Saudi Embassy... is perhaps part of a science fiction story, and can be classed with the famous tales of Harry Potter. This [allegation] does not merit further comment, nor does [Saudi Arabia] have to explain or defend itself – for accusations of this sort constitute [nothing more than] an official and regrettable announcement of the profound [moral] bankruptcy of Hizbullah and its propaganda apparatus. Does this kind of style befit the 'honor of the resistance [movement]' – a slogan that the channel likes to flaunt day and night?...

"Hizbullah desperately needs someone to rescue it from its own [blunders], since it is inconceivable that its 'divine' victory should lead [only] to fitna [i.e. internal strife], to the fabrication of lies, and to the deepening of the schism [in Lebanon]. Surveys and rating statistics do not lie. The figures show a sharp drop in Al-Manar's ratings... – for Arab viewers are not fools who cannot tell the difference between a real report and poison intended to sow strife. Media [channels] greater [than Al-Manar] have fallen into this trap..."(10)


*H. Varulkar is a research fellow at MEMRI.

Endnotes:
(1) Iraqi sources stated that Iraqi MPsmembers affiliated with the Al-Quds Forces belong to the United Iraqi Coalition led by the Al-Maliki government. These MPs are: Ahmad Jassim Muhammad Al-Moussawi, Iqbal Muhammad Khalil Al-Ghanemi, Mustapha Muhammad Baqi, 'Abd Al-Karim 'Abd Al-Sahib Muhammad Hasan Al-Naqib, 'Abbas Hasan Moussa Al-Amirli Al-Bayati, Riyadh 'Abd Al-Hamza Gharib (minister for municipalities), Hamid Rasheed Mu'aalah Al-Sa'edi, Hassan Jassim Nu'mah Al-Zamili, Muhammad Rajih 'Ulwan Al-Marzouk, and Basima 'Aziz Nasser Al-Ghezzi. Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), September 2, 2007.
(2) Recently, the issue of Iran-assisted land sales in southern Lebanon to the Shi'ite ethnic community has been the talk of the day, mainly following statements by Druze leader Walid Jumblatt. In an interview with the Lebanese weekly Nahar Al-Shabab, Jumblatt contended that Iran was helping Hizbullah purchase lands in southern Lebanon through Jihad Al-Bina', an organization belonging to Hizbullah and Shi'ite Lebanese businessman 'Ali Taj Al-Din. Jumblatt intimated that Hizbullah's aim was to attain political, military, and economic control over Lebanon. Nahar Al-Shabab (Lebanon), August 23, 2007.
(3) This sentence can also be understood to mean "a third network of mobile phones owned by Hizbullah."
(4) Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), August 27, 2007.
(5) Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), August 26, 2007.
(6) 'Okaz (Saudi Arabia), August 18, 2007.
(7) Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), August 21, 2007. Concerning criticism of Saudi Arabia by Farouq A-Shar' see MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 1687, "Syrian Vice-President in Speech Marking Syria's 'Journalist Day,'" August 17, 2007, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP168707.
(8) 'Okaz (Saudi Arabia), August 22, 2007.
(9) On August 16, 2007, the Saudi embassy in Lebanon responded to Al-Manar's allegations, stating that they "contained not even a grain of truth." Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), August 17, 2007.
(10) Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), August 21, 2007.

 

To view this Inquiry and Analysis in HTML, visit:
http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA39007.

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

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

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)
P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837
Search previous MEMRI publications at www.memri.org

Rechtszaak over documentaire 'Jenin, Jenin'

De documentaire-maker van 'Jenin, Jenin', een film die Israël beschuldigt van oorlogsmisdaden tijdens de herbezetting van Jenin in 2002, staat binnenkort terecht. Vijf soldaten die er vochten hebben een aanklacht wegens smaad ingediend, omdat de documentaire hun van een reeks aan gruwelijkheden beschuldigt:

Basing itself mainly on interviews with Palestinians in the refugee camp after the fighting ended, but also on film clips, Bakri portrayed Israeli troops as committing a series of war crimes. Although he described the film as a documentary, he did not interview Israeli officials or give them an opportunity to refute the allegations contained in the film.
The lawsuit, which was filed of behalf of the plaintiffs by attorney Amir Tytunovich, provides a long list of alleged examples of these allegations, including:
• An old man claimed that soldiers shot him in the arm and leg in cold blood without cause.
• A film segment was edited to indicate that a bulldozer drove over a group of Palestinians lined up on the ground.
• Soldiers used children as human shields and ordered them to make holes in the walls of houses so they could progress from one to the next without exposing themselves. They warned they would shoot the children if they did not obey.
• Soldiers executed a disabled and retarded man by running him over with a bulldozer.
• A doctor at a Jenin hospital accused the IDF of removing the bodies of Palestinians killed in the fighting.
• Soldiers tied up a Palestinian and shot him.

"Jenin, Jenin" is een bekende film buiten Israël en heeft bijgedragen aan de negatieve beeldvorming over Israël sinds de tweede intifada. Alleen daarom al is het belangrijk dat de aantijgingen van oorlogsmisdaden worden weersproken.

During the fighting in Jenin, Palestinian spokesmen, human rights organizations and foreign journalists accused Israel of conducting a civilian massacre. In the end, it emerged, according to Israeli figures, that 52 Palestinians were killed in the refugee camp, including 38 armed fighters and 14 civilians. Twenty-three IDF soldiers died in the fighting.

Dit waren niet alleen Israëlische cijfers, maar is bevestigd door Human Rights Watch en de VN. De wildste verhalen deden toendertijd de ronde, zoals dat Israël duizenden burgers had vermoord en in massagraven gedumpt. Deze verhalen zijn nooit duidelijk ontkracht en teruggenomen, en voor velen heeft Israël toen zijn laatste stukje sympathie verloren. Wat wel vergeten is, is dat in de maand voorafgaand aan de herbezetting van Jenin er in Israël meer dan 100 doden vielen door zelfmoordaanslagen, en dat dit aantal daarna drastisch was gedaald.

Net als in het geval van het Palestijnse jongetje Mohammed Al Dura, is de schade al gedaan ongeacht de uitkomst van een rechtszaak of onderzoek, maar het is belangrijk dat onjuiste beschuldigingen worden weerlegd. Overigens lijkt ook de documentaire maker (Bakri) al rekening te houden met het feit dat dit zal gebeuren. Zijn advocaat:

Bakri doesn't say anything in this film. The people who talk are those he filmed. So the residents of the refugee camp say things which sometimes are true and sometimes not. It's a movie. It reflects the subjective understanding of the speakers. Sometimes they say things that are harsher [than they actually were] because that is how he experienced it. Sometimes the talk is based on rumors. It is known that in situations of tension, things are exaggerated. So sometimes it is not the truth."

Zo werkt propaganda. De film suggereert uiteraard dat alles wat de mensen zeggen waar is, en niet dat zij in hun woede de zaken weleens wat willen overdrijven. Het heeft de vorm van een documentaire, die het ware verhaal over Jenin vertelt, niet een fictief verhaal over een fictieve strijd met fictieve slachtoffers. Het feit dat de advocaat zegt dat het een film is die met een korrel zout moet worden genomen, is onthullend. Dit zou in filmrecenties niet mogen ontbreken.

Ratna

_____________

Jerusalem Post
Sep 17, 2007 23:51 | Updated Sep 18, 2007 9:44
'Jenin, Jenin', now in court
By DAN IZENBERG
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411423305&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Petah Tikva District Court is due on Tuesday to begin hearings on a NIS 2.5 million lawsuit filed more than four years ago by five soldiers who fought in the Jenin refugee camp during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002.

Ofer Ben-Natan, Doron Keidar, Nir Oshri, Adam Arbiv and Yonatan Van-Kaspel sued Israeli Arab actor and director Muhammad Bakri for producing the film Jenin, Jenin, and the cinamatheques in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem for screening them, even though the film had been banned at the time by the state censor.

The film became a cause celebre when Bakri petitioned the High Court of Justice against the censor for prohibiting the screening of the film on the grounds that it distorted the truth. After a long fight, the court rejected the censor's decision and allowed the film to be shown in Israel.

The movie touched a raw nerve among Israelis. It was released in the middle of the intifada, when Palestinian suicide bombers were murdering many Israelis. Furthermore, the army's incursion into the Jenin refugee camp came in response to a spate of suicide attacks in March 2002, culminating in the attack on the Park Hotel in Netanya on the night of the Pessah Seder on March 27, in which 29 Israelis were killed.

During the fighting in Jenin, Palestinian spokesmen, human rights organizations and foreign journalists accused Israel of conducting a civilian massacre. In the end, it emerged, according to Israeli figures, that 52 Palestinians were killed in the refugee camp, including 38 armed fighters and 14 civilians. Twenty-three IDF soldiers died in the fighting.

Basing itself mainly on interviews with Palestinians in the refugee camp after the fighting ended, but also on film clips, Bakri portrayed Israeli troops as committing a series of war crimes. Although he described the film as a documentary, he did not interview Israeli officials or give them an opportunity to refute the allegations contained in the film.

The lawsuit, which was filed of behalf of the plaintiffs by attorney Amir Tytunovich, provides a long list of alleged examples of these allegations, including:

• An old man claimed that soldiers shot him in the arm and leg in cold blood without cause.

• A film segment was edited to indicate that a bulldozer drove over a group of Palestinians lined up on the ground.

• Soldiers used children as human shields and ordered them to make holes in the walls of houses so they could progress from one to the next without exposing themselves. They warned they would shoot the children if they did not obey.

• Soldiers executed a disabled and retarded man by running him over with a bulldozer.

• A doctor at a Jenin hospital accused the IDF of removing the bodies of Palestinians killed in the fighting.

• Soldiers tied up a Palestinian and shot him.

The lawsuit includes 13 incidents it describes as libel. "All of the terrible things listed above did not happen and are not true," Tytunovich wrote. He also wrote that in its advertisements for the film, the Tel Aviv and Jerusalem cinamatheques displayed a photograph of two of the plaintiffs, Ben-Natan and Keidar.

Bakri is being represented by attorney Avigdor Feldman.

Feldman was unavailable to talk to The Jerusalem Post.

But in an interview he gave during the High Court battle over the censorship of the film, he said the allegations in the film might have been true.

"I say that I can't say they're not true," he told Haaretz. "Had someone asked me two years ago whether it was conceivable that the IDF would drop a one-ton bomb in the heart of Gaza city, I would have said no. Today, I believe anything is possible. Bakri doesn't say anything in this film. The people who talk are those he filmed. So the residents of the refugee camp say things which sometimes are true and sometimes not. It's a movie. It reflects the subjective understanding of the speakers. Sometimes they say things that are harsher [than they actually were] because that is how he experienced it. Sometimes the talk is based on rumors. It is known that in situations of tension, things are exaggerated. So sometimes it is not the truth."

Franse minister Kouchner zwakt uitspraken over oorlog tegen Iran af

"We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst, sir, is war," zei de Franse minister van buitenlandse zaken een paar dagen geleden. Het kwam hem niet alleen op de verwachte woede van Iran te staan, maar ook Mohammed El Baradei, voorzitter van het IAEA, had er geen goed woord voor over:

"I would not talk about any use of force," he said, speaking outside an International Atomic Energy Agency meeting in Vienna. Any use of force would have to be authorized by the UN Security Council, he said. "There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons," he said, in a reference to the US's argument that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was necessary because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
"I do not believe at this stage that we are facing a clear and present danger that requires we go beyond diplomacy," ElBaradei said. "We need not to hype the issue."

Het probleem is, dat als je alles behalve vriendelijke diplomatie uitsluit, er voor Iran geen enkele aanleiding is om haar atoomprogramma te stoppen en geen nucleaire wapens te ontwikkelen.

De vergelijking met Irak gaat op meerdere punten niet op: van Iran is bekend dat het kernenergie aan het ontwikkelen is, en het is ook veel beter bewapend dan Irak. Bovendien gaat het bij Iran om een luchtaanval, en zelfs de grootste haviken in de VS zien een aanval met grondtroepen niet zitten. Een luchtaanval zal hoogstwaarschijnlijk tot een tegenaanval leiden, met mogelijk vele doden aan beide kanten, maar het zal niet vergelijkbaar zijn met de chaos en onveiligheid in Irak en het moeras waarin de VS soldaten nu zitten. Het cijfer van 700.000 doden (in 4,5 jaar) is overigens een grove schatting; dat zou betekenen dat er 155.000 doden per jaar zijn gevallen, ofwel zo'n 12.900 per maand ofwel 425 per dag. Dat is zeer onwaarschijnlijk; een aanslag waarbij meer dan 100 doden vallen, wordt als uitzonderlijk veel gezien. Dat er gemiddeld 425 mensen omkomen betekent dat naast de aanslagen die we via het nieuws vernemen nog eens honderden mensen per dag op andere wijze omkomen. Daarmee is de oorlog in Irak niet gerechtvaardigd, maar ik vind het een slecht teken dat El Baradei zo'n cijfer zo makkelijk noemt.

Ik zou graag vernemen wanneer hij meent dat de tijd voor meer druk op Iran is aangebroken. Waarschijnlijk zal dit zo rond de tijd zijn dat de VN Mensenrechtenraad Soedan, Iran en Zimbabwe vaker veroordeelt dan Israël, en in resoluties van de Algemene Vergadering naast de bezetting ook Palestijns terrorisme hard wordt veroordeeld. Dat kan dus nog wel even duren.

Ondertussen ben ik erg blij met de ferme Franse uitspraken, en hoop dat men zich ook in VN verband daadwerkelijk harder zal opstellen. Een Iran uitgerust met kernwapens zal de kans op oorlog niet perse verkleinen, en zal de gevolgen van een dergelijke oorlog onnoemelijk veel erger maken.

Ratna
____________

NOT A WARMONGER
Kouchner Plays Down Iran 'War' Remarks
SPIEGEL ONLINE - September 18, 2007, 12:21 PM
www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,506361,00.html

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has sought to play down his remarks that the world should prepare for war against Iran. He did not want to appear to be a "warmonger," he said Tuesday as he headed to Moscow for talks.

"I do not want it to be said that I am a warmonger!" he told the newspaper Le Monde Tuesday as he flew to Moscow for talks with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov. "My message was a message of peace, of seriousness and of determination. ... The worst situation would be war. To avoid that, the French attitude is to negotiate, negotiate, negotiate, without fear of being rebuffed, and to work with our European friends on credible sanction."

However, in an interview with a Russian newspaper he called again for harder sanctions against Iran. "We demand an answer as to why the Iranians want to engage in enriching uranium," he said in an interview published Tuesday in the Russian daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta. He called the proliferation of nuclear weapons "one of the greatest dangers at the beginning of the 21st century."

Speaking on RTL radio Sunday, Kouchner warned that the world should prepare for war if Iran succeeds in obtaining nuclear weapons. "We must prepare for the worst," he said, adding, "The worst ... is war." However he said that he did not believe that war was imminent. He also said that Paris and Berlin were preparing possible European Union economic sanctions against Tehran, which would be separate from UN sanctions.

Iran insists its atomic activities are entirely peaceful and are aimed only at producing energy, but many Western countries suspect that the Iranian government is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

The United States has refused to rule out the possibility of force against Iran if it continues with its nuclear program. However, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday the US administration is currently committed to using diplomatic and economic means to counter the potential nuclear threat from Iran. The five permanent Security Council members -- the United Kingdom, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany are due to meet in Washington on Sept. 21 to discuss a new draft UN resolution on sanctions against Iran.

'Learn the Lesson' of Iraq

Kouchner's remarks elicited a forceful reaction from the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector, Mohamed ElBaradei, on Monday. "I would not talk about any use of force," he said, speaking outside an International Atomic Energy Agency meeting in Vienna. Any use of force would have to be authorized by the UN Security Council, he said. "There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons," he said, in a reference to the US's argument that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was necessary because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

"I do not believe at this stage that we are facing a clear and present danger that requires we go beyond diplomacy," ElBaradei said. "We need not to hype the issue." In a recent SPIEGEL interview, ElBaradei warned that the next few months would be crucial for deciding if the Iran dispute moves "in the direction of escalation or in the direction of a peaceful solution."

On Monday, French Prime Minister Francois Fillon downplayed Kouchner's remarks, saying "everything must be done to avoid war." France's role "is to lead the way to a peaceful solution," he said. However, he also called for "the most severe sanctions possible" if the Iranian government continues with its nuclear program.

Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema also attempted Monday to downplay talk of the use of force. "Before talking about war, we have to give political and diplomatic initiatives necessary time," D'Alema said.

The Iranian reaction to Kouchner's hawkish remarks was predictably disparaging. Iranian Vice President Reza Aghazadeh accused certain unspecified countries of forcing the international community on to the "unjustified, illegal, deceptive and misleading path ... by imposing restrictions and sanctions." He said Iran would "never give up its inalienable and legal right in benefiting from peaceful nuclear technology."

Iranian state media Monday accused the French government of copying the US's hardline approach. "The occupants of the Élysée have become translators of the White House policies in Europe and have adopted a tone that is even harder, even more inflammatory and more illogical than that of Washington," Iran's state-run IRNA news agency wrote in an online editorial Monday.

Mein Kampf 'legaliseren'? Een verkeerd signaal op een verkeerd tijdstip

Ronny Naftaniel legt hier helder uit hoe het nu precies zit met het verbod op Mein Kampf. Het boek is niet expliciet verboden, maar valt onder hetzelfde wetsartikel tegen haatzaaien waaronder ook Holocaustontkenning valt.

 

 

Wouter
_________________________

Brabants Dagblad, 14 september 2007
Een verkeerd signaal op een verkeerd tijdstip

door Ronny Naftaniel

Met open ogen is minister Plasterk in de provocatie van PVV-voorman Geert Wilders getrapt. Wilders stelde onlangs voor de Koran te verbieden, omdat dit voor moslims heilige boek net zoveel aanzet tot haat als Mein Kampf van Adolf Hitler. In het blad Hollands Diep ging Plasterk vervolgens op Wilders in door ervoor te pleiten Mein Kampf niet langer te verbieden.

Daarmee gaf de bewindsman op het verkeerde tijdstip het verkeerde signaal af en liet hij blijken weinig van deze gevoelige materie te snappen.

Allereerst moet vastgesteld worden dat er in Nederland geen enkel verbod bestaat op het lezen van Mein Kampf. Nergens ligt dat in de wet vast. Dat kan ook niet omdat we in een digitale wereld leven. Binnen enkele minuten kan elke Nederlander via het internet bij Amerikaanse extreem-rechtse sites de honderden pagina's van het in 1924 geschreven boekwerk downloaden. Men kan er dus vrij kennis van nemen, als men dat zo nodig wil.

Wat in het kader van de algemeen geldende racismewetgeving in ons land wel verboden is, wordt geregeld in de artikelen 137 c-f van het Wetboek van Stafrecht. Daarbij gaat het in het bijzonder om artikel 137 e, lid 1:

'Hij die, anders dan ten behoeve van zakelijke berichtgeving een uitlating openbaar maakt die, naar hij weet of redelijkerwijs moet vermoeden, voor een groep mensen wegens hun ras, hun godsdienst of levensovertuiging of hun hetero- of homoseksuele gerichtheid beledigend is of aanzet tot haat tegen of discriminatie van mensen (?.) wordt gestraft met gevangenisstraf van ten hoogste zes maanden of geldboete van de derde categorie.'

Dit artikel maakt niet alleen het verspreiden van Mein Kampf, maar ook het drukken van hakenkruisen en SS-tekens of het in pamfletten en boeken beledigen van homo's en moslims een potentieel te vervolgen handeling. De praktijk daarbij is dat gekwetste burgers of maatschappelijke organisaties aangifte tegen de verspreider doen, waarna de officier van justitie de zaak voor de rechter kan brengen. Het is vervolgens aan de rechter om na weging van alle omstandigheden te beslissen of de verspreiding van een dergelijk geschrift geoorloofd is.

Tot dusver hebben de rechters in Nederland steeds geoordeeld dat het verspreiden van Mein Kampf strafbaar is, maar hiervoor bestaat geen expliciete verbodsbepaling.

De minister van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap heeft geen enkele taak bij deze rechtsgang. Integendeel, hij mag als lid van de regering niet op de stoel van de rechter gaan zitten. Zijn mening dat

Hitlers schotschrift tegen de democratie en de Joden vrij verkrijgbaar moet zijn, heeft slechts de waarde van een, in mijn ogen ongelukkige, privémening.

Als over deze materie iemand wat te zeggen heeft, is het de minister van Justitie, die de betreffende an- tiracismewetgeving na goedkeuring van het parlement zou kunnen intrekken. Daarmee zouden echter extreemrechts en andere Hitler-adepten plotseling een fikse steun in de rug krijgen.

Juist op het moment dat leden van de extreemrechtse beweging Voorpost zware straffen opgelegd hebben gekregen voor hun pogingen in Almere een synagoge en een moskee in brand te steken én op het moment dat het rechtsradicalisme in ons land groeit, is dit het verkeerde signaal. Het is ondenkbaar dat minister Hirsch Ballin van Justitie zo ver zou willen gaan.

De Europese Kaderovereenkomst van begin van dit jaar, die racisme juist harder wil aanpakken, maakt dit ook praktisch onmogelijk.

Minister Plasterk had zich beter kunnen afvragen wat de relevantie van zijn opmerking is voor zijn eigen vakgebied: onderwijs en wetenschappen. De uitdaging is immers hoe je de perfide visie van Mein Kampf kunt gebruiken als waarschuwing voor het heden en met name in het onderwijs. Daarbij valt te denken aan het ter beschikking stellen van geld voor het maken van een wetenschappelijke versie van dit boek - voorzien van notities en commentaren - en wel op een zodanige wijze dat het de catastrofale gevolgen van Hitlers denkbeelden scherp weergeeft. Eric Jurgens, oud-senator van de PvdA, en voormalig D66-leider Boris Dittrich hebben in het verleden al iets dergelijks voorgesteld.

De 'waarde' van het boek is immers dat Hitler zo'n tien jaar voordat hij aan de macht kwam op duivelse wijze beschreef wat er volgens hem met de Joden moest gebeuren. Indertijd geloofden velen dat het zo'n vaart niet zou lopen. Ook de Duitse Joden niet, totdat het te laat was.

We zijn nu drie generaties van de Tweede Wereldoorlog verwijderd. De meeste jongeren weten nauwelijks wat Hitler op zijn kerfstok had en hoe hij aan de macht kwam. Mein Kampf, mits voorzien van een voorwoord dat verklaart hoe Hitler zijn verwerpelijke ideeën in de praktijk bracht en hoe weinig de wereld ertegen deed en voorts uitgerust met een illustratief notenapparaat, kan een impuls geven aan de strijd tegen het hedendaagse racisme en antisemitisme.

Laten we niet vergeten dat er momenteel in Europa groepen jongeren zijn die weer schreeuwen dat 'Joden dood moeten'. De kreet 'Hamas, Hamas, Joden aan het gas' is in sommige straten in Amsterdam tot de hoogste wijsheid verheven. Anderen vertikken het lessen te volgen over de Shoa en terroriseren leraren die toch een poging hiertoe doen.

In de Arabische landen en ook in Europa komt de eeuwenoude complottheorie weer op. Joden zouden aan de touwtjes in Washington trekken en de wereldpolitiek naar hun hand zetten. En voor de Iraanse president Ahmadineyad is de Holocaust een leugen, die de Joden gebruiken om de wereld te chanteren. Deze imaginaire rol van de Joden kun je zo terugvinden in Mein Kampf.

Het is de taak van een minister van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen dit soort zorgwekkende verschijnselen te bestrijden langs de wegen die hem ter beschikking staan. Dat betekent effectieve voorlichting over racisme in het onderwijs en zeker niet het uiten van losse flodders die alleen maar extreem rechts in de kaart spelen.

 

Ronny Naftaniel is directeur van het Centrum voor Informatie en Documentatie over Israël (CIDI)

IDF eist originele Mohammed al-Dura filmbanden

De dood van het Palestijnse jongetje Mohammed Al Dura in de armen van zijn vader leidde 7 jaar geleden tot een storm van verontwaardiging en was voor sommige Palestijnen een 'inspriratiebron' voor zelfmoordaanslagen in Israël. De beelden, oorspronkelijk uitgezonden door France 2, waarin hij in koelen bloede door het Israëlische leger zou zijn doodgeschoten, gingen de wereld over.

Het Israëlische leger heeft zich nooit publiekelijk over de zaak uitgesproken, maar volgens veel Israëli's was de hele zaak in scene gezet, en was hij niet door Israëlisch maar door Palestijns vuur gedood. Herhaaldelijke verzoeken door het leger en anderen om het volledige materiaal van 27 minuten te zien (waarvan slechts 55 seconden waren uitgezonden) zijn tot nu toe afgewezen, waardoor een serieus onderzoek werd bemoeilijkt, zo niet onmogelijk gemaakt. Dit feit alleen al is verdacht. Als de andere 26 minuten van dezelfde strekking zijn, waarom wil men deze dan niet vrijgeven? Blijkbaar heeft men wat te verbergen.

Hoewel de dood van één jongetje in het niet valt in verhouding tot de duizenden doden en gewonden en alle ellende aan beide kanten sinds de tweede intifada, is hij zozeer een symbool geworden van Israëlische wreedheid en onmenselijkheid, dat het belangrijk is dat deze zaak goed wordt uitgezocht en alle feiten aan het licht komen.

Ratna
_________________________

IDF demands uncut al-Dura tape
Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST Sep. 17, 2007
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411415051&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The IDF has abandoned its official silence in a seven-year-old case that has been characterized as a "blood libel" against the IDF and the State of Israel.

On September 10, the deputy commander of the IDF's Spokesman's Office, Col. Shlomi Am-Shalom, submitted a letter to the France 2 television network's permanent correspondent in Israel, Charles Enderlin, regarding Enderlin's story from September 30, 2000, in which he televised 55 seconds of edited footage from the Netzarim junction in the central Gaza Strip purporting to show IDF forces shooting and killing 12-year-old Muhammad al-Dura.

After its exclusive broadcast that day, France 2 offered the edited film free of charge to all media outlets. The footage, and the story of the purported IDF killing of al-Dura, was quickly rebroadcast around the world.

Within days, al-Dura became a symbol of the Palestinian war against Israel. His name has been repeatedly invoked by terrorists and their supporters as a justification for killing Israelis, Jews and their Western supporters.

In his letter, Am-Shalom asked for the entire unedited 27-minute film that was shot by France 2's Palestinian cameraman Talal Abu-Rahma that day, as well as the footage filmed by Abu-Rahma on October 1, 2000. Am-Shalom requested that the broadcast-quality films be sent to his office no later than September 15. France 2 has yet to hand over the requested film.

The IDF's move came against the backdrop of French media watchdog Philippe Karsenty's legal battle with France 2 regarding the network's coverage of the al-Dura affair.

Last year, France 2 and Enderlin sued Karsenty, who runs the Internet media watchdog Web site Media Ratings, for defamation for a letter he sent out in 2004 accusing France 2 of staging the al-Dura story.

Karsenty also called for the resignations of Enderlin and of France 2's news director, Arlette Chabot, for their roles in promulgating the alleged hoax. In October 2006 a French court decided in favor of France 2 and Enderlin, and against Karsenty.

The court acknowledged that Karsenty had submitted significant evidence indicating that the event had been staged. Still, in ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, the judges said Karsenty's accusations lacked credibility because, it claimed, he had based his accusations on a single source.

The court also stressed that "no Israeli authority, neither the army - which is nonetheless most affected, nor the Justice [Ministry] has ever accorded the slightest credit to [Karsenty's] allegations" regarding the authenticity of the France 2 report.

In his letter to Enderlin, Am-Shalom disputes the judges' assertion. "It is my duty to note," he wrote, "[that their claim] does not correspond to repeated attempts made by the IDF to receive the filmed materials, and with the conclusions of the IDF's committee of inquiry [into the purported shooting] that were widely publicized in the international and French media."

Am-Shalom has discussed at length the findings of the IDF's probe into the incident. That inquiry was ordered by then-OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yom Tov Samia.

Citing Samia, Am-Shalom wrote, "The general has made clear that from an analysis of all the data from the scene, including the location of the IDF position, the trajectory of the bullets, the location of the father [Jamal al-Dura] and the son behind an obstacle, the cadence of the bullet fire, the angle at which the bullets penetrated the wall behind the father and his son, and the hours of the events, we can rule out with the greatest certainty the possibility that the gunfire that apparently harmed the boy and his father was fired by IDF soldiers, who were at the time located only inside their fixed position [at the junction]."

Am-Shalom further notes that "Gen. Samia emphasized to me that all his attempts to receive the filmed material for the purpose of his inquiry were rejected."
The IDF is in urgent need of the footage, Am-Shalom said, because "it has been asked to comment on the ruling [against Karsenty] from October 19, 2006, on this issue, which is scheduled to be discussed in a French appellate court on September 19."

"Since we are cognizant of the fact that there have been attempts to stage media events, and since doubt has been raised along these lines regarding the story under discussion, we asked to receive the aforementioned materials in order to conclude this episode and to get to the truth," Am-Shalom said.

In the past, the IDF shied away from taking a strong public position on the al-Dura affair. At the time of the incident, then-chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Shaul Mofaz and then-prime minister and defense minister Ehud Barak did not openly support Samia's inquiry or its findings.

As late as June 23, 2006, then-IDF Spokesperson Brig.-Gen. Miri Regev told Haaretz, "I cannot determine whether the IDF is or is not responsible for the killing of al-Dura."

In the aftermath of Karsenty's civil trial last year, the IDF came under considerable criticism both in Israel and from Jewish groups abroad for its silence on the issue.

While the IDF maintained official silence, independent probes by various foreign media organizations and Internet activists over the past several years have called the veracity of the France 2 report into serious question.

Those investigations demonstrated that purported IDF "attacks" against Palestinian civilians were being openly staged by Palestinian cameramen and locals at the Netzarim junction throughout the day of the alleged shooting of al-Dura.

Am-Shalom sent copies of his letter to Samia, incoming IDF Deputy Chief of General Staff Maj.-Gen. Dan Harel, the France 2 representative in Israel, the president of the network in France, and Philippe Karsenty.

Iraanse TV serie over Holocaust sympathiek naar Joden

Nadat Achmadinejad meermaals de Holocaust heeft ontkend, is er nu een mini-serie op de Iraanse TV waarin een Iraanse diplomaat Joden aan visa helpt om aan de Holocaust te ontkomen. Beter laat dan nooit, en wat goed dat hier nu eindelijk aandacht voor is, in een land waarin mensen hierover nagenoeg niets weten en dit niet in schoolboeken voorkomt noch in de media.
Over de motieven kan men speculeren, en onderstaand artikel suggereert dat het een teken is dat de gematigden aan invloed winnen in Iran, maar oppert ook een andere verklaring:

But the series has won support even from hardliners. Some argue that it links the Holocaust with Israel's creation, thus boosting an argument by Ahmadinejad that if the Nazi killing of Jews did take place, the Palestinians who then lived in Palestine should not have had to pay the price for it by the creation of Israel after the war.
"The series differentiates between Jews and Zionism. The ground for forming Israel is prepared when Hitler's army puts pressure on activist Jews. In this sense, it considers Nazism parallel to Zionism," the hard-line newspaper Keyhan said.

 

Uiteraard houdt sympathie voor de Joden tijdens de Holocaust nog geen steun in voor Israël, alhoewel je de conclusie zou kunnen trekken dat juist de Holocaust aantoonde dat ze zonder eigen staat niet veilig zijn. Bovenstaande redenering toont aan hoe de Holocaust juist tegen Israël gebruikt kan worden, door te suggereren dat Israël aan de Joden is gegeven uit schuldgevoel over de Holocaust, waarbij de binding van de Joden met Israël en het recht van de Joden als volk op een staat worden ontkend.

 

 

Ratna  
______________________________
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20808260/
Iran TV series sympathetic to Jews
Viewers riveted by show that depicts Holocaust, rarely mentioned in Iran

The Associated Press
Updated: 4:45 p.m. ET Sept. 16, 2007

 

TEHRAN, Iran - It is Iran's version of "Schindler's List," a miniseries that tells the tale of an Iranian diplomat in Paris who helps Jews escape the Holocaust - and viewers across the country are riveted.

That's surprising enough in a country where hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has questioned whether the Holocaust even took place. What's more surprising is that government media produced the series, and is airing it on state-run television.

The Holocaust is rarely mentioned in state media in Iran, school textbooks don't discuss it and Iranians have little information about it.

Yet the series titled "Zero Degree Turn" is clearly sympathetic to the Jews' plight during World War II. It shows men, women and children with yellow stars on their clothes being taken forcibly out of their homes and loaded into trucks by Nazi soldiers.

"Where are they taking them?" the horrified hero, a young Iranian diplomat who works at the Iranian Embassy in Paris, asks someone in a crowd of onlookers.

"The Fascists are taking the Jews to the concentration camps," the man says. The hero, named Habib Parsa, then begins giving Iranian passports to Jews to allow them to flee occupied France to then-Palestine.

 

Based on a true story

Though the Habib character is fictional, it is based on a true story of diplomats in the Iranian Embassy in Paris in the 1940s who gave out about 500 Iranian passports for Jews to use to escape.

The show's appearance now may reflect an attempt by Iran's leadership to moderate its image as anti-Semitic and to underline a distinction that Iranian officials often make - that their conflict is with Israel, not with the Jewish people.

About 25,000 Jews live in Iran, the largest Jewish community in the Middle East after Israel. They have one representative in parliament, which is run mostly by Islamic clerics.

The series could not have aired without being condoned by Iran's clerical leadership. The state broadcaster is under the control of the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khomenei, who has final say in all matters inside Iran.

Moderate conservatives have been gaining ground in Iran, where there is increasing discontent with the ruling hardliners over rising tensions with the West, a worsening economy and price hikes in basic commodities.

The government even allowed the series to break another taboo in Iran: For the first time, many actresses appear without the state-mandated Islamic dress code. The producers wanted to realistically portray 1940s Paris, and thus avoided the headscarves and head-to-foot robes that all women must normally wear on Iranian TV.

Ahmadinejad sparked widespread outrage in 2005 when he made comments casting doubt on the Holocaust and saying the state of Israel should be "wiped from the map." His government organized a conference of Holocaust deniers and skeptics from around the world in December.

But the series has won support even from hardliners. Some argue that it links the Holocaust with Israel's creation, thus boosting an argument by Ahmadinejad that if the Nazi killing of Jews did take place, the Palestinians who then lived in Palestine should not have had to pay the price for it by the creation of Israel after the war.

"The series differentiates between Jews and Zionism. The ground for forming Israel is prepared when Hitler's army puts pressure on activist Jews. In this sense, it considers Nazism parallel to Zionism," the hard-line newspaper Keyhan said.

However, if the series does aim to make that point, it has not done so overtly.

Gaining understanding

State media have said the series, which began in April, is popular. It has been a revelation for some Iranians and has pulled them away from more popular satellite channels, which are banned but which many watch anyway on illegal dishes. The fare on state TV is usually dry.

"Once, I wept when I learned through the film what a dreadful destiny the small nation had during the world war in the heart of so-called civilized Europe," said Mahboubeh Rahamati, a Tehran bank teller.

Kazem Gharibi said he watches the series every Monday on a TV in his grocery store.

"Through this film, I understood that Jews had a hard time in the war - helpless and desperate, as we were when Iraq imposed war on us," he said, referring to the eight-year Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

The series began with a love story between Habib, the embassy employee, and a French Jew, Sara Stroke, in the early 1940s. Viewers say the love story pulls them in as much as the history.

After Paris is occupied by the Nazis, Habib decides to forge Iranian passports for many French Jews to save them from the Holocaust - starting with Sara and her family. The German government accepts his embassy's claim that the passport holders are from an Iranian tribe and lets them leave France.

Habib is imprisoned by the Nazis for espionage after his forgeries are discovered. He then is released and returns to Tehran, where he is jailed again for forging passports.

Eight episodes remain in the series, and viewers drawn by the love story are on edge as they await the finish.

"I have watched the series from the beginning," said Sedigheh Karandish, a housewife and mother of two. "It's pulling me in to see what these two people do at the end. Hopefully, it will be a happy ending."

 

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20808260/

 

De Israëlisch-Palestijnse vredesconference in november 2007 (Inssight)

Wat heb je aan een overeenkomst waarvan nu al wordt gezegd dat die niet wordt uitgevoerd? Toch is dat waar het volgens deze analyse om zal gaan bij de vredesconferentie in november in de VS:

"The brief period left until the November meeting makes it difficult to bridge the gap between the two sides; a solution is being sought in the form of an agreement on principles that is not meant to be implemented but that will lay out the guidelines according to which a detailed, permanent agreement will be negotiated and formulated later."

Israël benadrukt dat het om een algemene verklaring gaat, en niet om een concreet plan dat nu uitvoerbaar is. Maar algemene principes zijn er genoeg, en onder andere vervat in de door beide zijden geaccepteerde Routekaart naar de Vrede. De Palestijnen nemen hier dan ook geen genoegen mee, en het zal niet genoeg zijn om Abbas' regering te versterken en Hamas te verzwakken. De Palestijnen willen een gedetailleerd plan voor een onafhankelijke staat.

Alles wat wordt overeengekomen zal de druk op Israël om concrete concessies te doen (zoals gebied overdragen, checkpoints opruimen, gevangenen vrijlaten) vergroten. In plaats van implementatie op de lange baan proberen te schuiven, is het wellicht beter hier concrete voorwaarden aan te verbinden. Niet om zo alsnog uitvoering te vermijden, maar om uitvoering mogelijk te maken zonder dat dit tot meer 'succesvolle' aanslagen in Israël, wapensmokkel e.d. zal leiden.

Ratna
_________________________________

INSSIGHT September 17, 2007   No. 30

The Israeli-Palestinian Conference in November

Shlomo Brom - The Institute for National Security Studies

President Bush's initiative to convene an international meeting in November on the Israeli-Palestinian track has given a new boost to the Israeli-Palestinian dialogue.  This follows the dynamic created by Hamas' takeover of the Gaza Strip in June this year.  The key question now is whether these stimuli can pull the cart of Israeli-Palestinian relations out of the bog in which it has been stuck since the end of 2000.

Hamas' takeover of Gaza made possible a renewed dialogue between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas because it led to the breakup of the Palestinian national unity government that had been boycotted by Israel.  It also prompted the adoption of a policy aimed at building up the Fatah government in the West Bank and strangling the Hamas government in Gaza.  The operating assumption behind that policy is that if the Fatah administration becomes a success story and the Hamas administration turns out to be a failure, the Palestinian public will abandon Hamas and renew its support for Fatah, which has recognized Israel and been its traditional interlocutor.  In dealing with Israel, the Palestinian side has consistently argued that, alongside measures to improve the quality of life, the best way to improve Fatah's public image is to create a political horizon.  That argument implies that Fatah's clearest advantage over Hamas is its ability to secure a political agreement that satisfies the basic aspirations of the Palestinian people.

Announcement of the Washington meeting, which was upgraded in the international and Israeli media to the status of "conference," created a target date for concrete results in pre-meeting negotiations, because since the failure of the Camp David meeting in 2000, there is great apprehension about building up expectations that end in huge disappointment.  As a result, the dialogue between the two sides has been accelerated and now involves periodic meetings between Olmert and Abbas as well as contacts carried out by Minister Haim Ramon aimed at reaching some understandings that will provide the basis for agreement between the two leaders.

Both sides will have to overcome serious obstacles in order to reach the desired agreement.  The main obstacle is the lack of Israeli confidence in the Palestinian ability to implement any agreement at all.  Consequently, the agreement now under discussion is not meant to be implemented in the immediate future.  Indeed, it is difficult for Israel to take on clear obligations in the context of an agreement which it doubts will ever be implemented.  Secondly, the lingering trauma of Camp David has left Israel reluctant to enter into what it suspects would be another adventure in permanent status negotiations that will fail and produce only negative consequences.  Israel therefore prefers a process built on partial agreements.  The third obstacle is the domestic situation on both sides, which results in each side having an interest in a different type of agreement.

The Palestinians want as detailed an agreement as possible that addresses all the sensitive issues, including Jerusalem and the refugees.  But on the Israeli side, a weak and divided government produces fear that if the Prime Minister agrees to what will be seen as concessions on these sensitive issues, his coalition will crumble because two parties, Shas and Avigdor Lieberman's Israel Beitenu, will walk out.  For these reasons, the Israeli side prefers as general an agreement as possible.  The brief period left until the November meeting makes it difficult to bridge the gap between the two sides; a solution is being sought in the form of an agreement on principles that is not meant to be implemented but that will lay out the guidelines according to which a detailed, permanent agreement will be negotiated and formulated later.  Following a couple of earlier meetings, Olmert and Abbas agreed on 10 September to appoint negotiating teams to work out these guidelines.

However, matters are further complicated by exogenous factors.  The policy of cultivating Fatah in the West Bank while pressuring Hamas in Gaza creates a strong Hamas interest in sabotaging the Olmert-Abbas dialogue.  One way to do so is to portray Abbas as a servant of Israel and the United States who concedes to them on issues of vital Palestinian interest.  Another is to resort to violence, because it will be very difficult to conduct effective negotiations in an atmosphere of rising violence.  Indeed, there has recently been a noticeable rise in violence in the Gaza Strip and Hamas has also tried to launch attacks from the West Bank.  Several successful attacks and the ensuing Israeli responses could well make any agreement impossible.

The success of the November meeting/conference will depend not only on the two sides' ability to produce a common position paper but also on the identity of the other participants, because the meeting represents an effort to encourage states supporting the Arab peace initiative to play a more active part in promoting Israeli-Palestinian agreement.  However, Saudi Arabia - which helped formulate the initiative - has thus far avoided any commitment to participate.  Saudi Arabia shuns any direct, public contact with Israel and leaves that "dirty work" to Egypt and Jordan, states that already have peace treaties with Israel, so Saudi participation in the meeting would constitute a deviation from this policy and show readiness to take a more visible role.

Given the difficulties in reaching pre-meeting agreement and the problematic question of the attendees, it is not surprising that both Israel and the United States are now trying to lower expectations.  Their efforts have already had some success: immediately after Bush's announcement, the media tended to inflate its importance; the Israeli media, at least, have more recently begun to downplay the significance of the event.

Even if the November meeting produces no real achievement, it will probably not have the same dramatic aftermath as did the failure of Camp David, simply because expectations are so much lower.  Still, failure this time would seriously undermine the policy of building up Fatah and wearing down Hamas.  The chances of that policy succeeding are in any case not high given the tendency of the Palestinian public to blame the problems in Gaza on Hamas' enemies rather than on Hamas itself.  But failure in Washington would also allow Hamas to demonstrate clearly that its political rival is incapable of delivering the agreement that the Palestinians desire.

---
INSS Insight is published through the generosity of Sari and Israel Roizman, Philadelphia

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

Abbas dreigt vredesconferentie te boycotten

Terwijl de vredesconferentie in de VS al over zo'n twee maanden plaats zou moeten vinden, zijn er nog geen uitnodigingen verstuurd en is er nog geen concrete agenda. Evenmin is duidelijk wie eraan deel zullen nemen, behalve de VS, Israël en de Fatah regering. Zowel Israël als de VS zijn de verwachtingen aan het temperen. En nu dreigt Abbas ook nog eens niet te zullen deelnemen als Israël niet bereid is om concrete plannen inclusief een tijdschema voor implementatie te accepteren.

Dit laatste is misschien begrijpelijk, omdat er al genoeg bijeenkomsten en conferenties zijn geweest die bleven steken in mooie woorden. Maar in plaats van slechts ongenoegen uit te spreken en zelfs met een boycot te dreigen, kan Abbas ook zelf met voorstellen komen. Over hoe de orde te handhaven in de door Israël over te dragen gebieden, hoe te voorkomen dat wapens voor zijn veiligheidsdienst in handen van terroristen belanden, hoe de corruptie tegen te gaan.

 

Hij zou Israël tot verdergaande concessies kunnen verleiden door zelf te hinten op vergaande concessies van Palestijnse kant, zoals de erkenning dat ook de Palestijnen verantwoordelijkheid dragen voor het vluchtelingenprobleem. Uiteraard zal hij dan door de Hamas worden neergezet als een verrader die de Palestijnse belangen verkwanselt, maar dat gebeurt nu ook al.

 

Abbas moet de bevolking voor een keuze stellen: vergaande concessies in ruil voor een staat, of de slachtofferrol en 'gewapend verzet' tegen Israël in ruil voor méér van de huidige ellende. In het eerste geval zal Israël zijn eisen niet kunnen negeren, en kan Olmert de sceptici in zijn regering ook makkelijker overtuigen van de noodzaak tot vergaande concessies.

Ratna
_________________________
 
Last update - 05:16 17/09/2007   
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/904367.html

Abbas threatens to boycott peace summit

By Avi Isacharoff, Aluf Benn and Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondents, and Agencies


Palestinian authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas will not attend Washington's regional peace summit in November unless Israel agrees to a reach an agreement with the Palestinians there, Abbas' associates told Haaretz Sunday, adding the summit could "prove dangerous". With U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expected to arrive in Jerusalem Monday, the Saudis also submitted some preconditions for their attendance.

The Palestinian sources were reacting to Olmert's statement that afternoon that Israel and the Palestinians will not present an Agreement of Principles on final status issues at the summit, but issue a joint declaration instead. "We are formulating a joint declaration to headline the regional meeting, should it take place," Olmert told ministers from his party, Kadima, in Jerusalem.

"If Olmert says there'll just be a declaration, it's not worth going to this meeting in Washington," said Nimr Hamad, an adviser to Abbas. In an unusual move, the chairman's office issued a press release reacting to Olmert's statement.

In the statement, Abbas' office did not refer to the possibility that Abbas would not attend. The statement did read, however, that the Palestinian Authority was seeking a structural agreement, and that a declaration of intentions would not suffice.

Call for timetable

The statement called for a timetable and mechanisms responsible for the implementation of stages of the permanent agreement, including collateral for implementation. The statement also said that all issues of the permanent agreement - including jurisdiction on holy places, permanent borders and the question of Palestinian refugees - must be addressed in the agreement.

"We can live without the summit, but if does take place and fail by producing nothing more than a joint statement, then it could prove to be a danger for the whole region," one of Abbas' senior advisers told Haaretz. "We must not attend such a summit. We're not demanding the resolution of the entire problem by then, but we are demanding a significant breakthrough from the meeting."

In his daily briefing for reporters in Jeddah, Saudi Minister of Foreign Affairs Prince Saud al-Faisal echoed the Palestinian demands. "If this conference will not discuss serious topics aimed to resolve the conflict, put Arab initiative as a key objective, set an agenda that details issues as required and oblige Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories, this conference will not have any objective and will turn into protracted negotiations."

Western diplomats who recently visited Saudi Arabia told Haaretz that in their conversations with Saudi officials, they received the impressions that Saudi Arabia will not attend the summit. The sources say the Saudis regard a declaration of intentions as insufficient justification for their attendance.

Commenting on the internal dispute within the Palestinian Authority between Fatah and its rival organization Hamas, al-Faisal said the Kingdom remains committed to the Mecca Agreement between the parties.

"The terms of the Mecca initiative are clear and agreed upon by the Palestinian parties," he said. "If there is a desire for reconciliation, they have to refer to the terms of Mecca Agreement and implement them. The Kingdom will not provide any alternative initiative to Mecca Agreement.

The Kingdom also hopes for a resolution to the crisis in Lebanon and is cautiously optimistic about developments, al-Faisal said.

Jeruzalem niet onder soevereiniteit van God

Jeruzalem is, zoals Shlomo Avineri schrijft, de hardste noot om te kraken voor een vredesovereenkomst tussen Israëli's en Palestijnen. Dat de 'eeuwige en ondeelbare' hoofdstad van Israël uiteindelijk toch verdeeld zal moeten worden, lijkt onvermijdelijk, daar de Palestijnen nooit met minder genoegen zullen nemen.

 

Het oude VN voorstel om Jeruzalem met Bethlehem te 'internationaliseren', gezien hun belang voor de wereldgodsdiensten, is nooit meer dan een dode letter geweest, en geen van beide partijen heeft dit sinds de afwijzing van het delingsplan in 1947 nog serieus genomen. Onder Jordaanse heerschappij werden synagoges en joodse begraafplaatsen vernield, en was de Oude Stad van Jeruzalem een 'no-go area' voor Joden, en ook onder Palestijns bestuur is gezien de ervaring niet te verwachten dat de Joodse rechten gewaarborgd zouden worden en hun heilige plaatsen veilig zouden zijn. De islamitische Waqf die de Tempelberg beheert ontkent zelfs de Joodse historische verbondenheid met die plaats, en heeft bij graafwerkzaamheden achteloos Joodse artifacten naar het stort afgevoerd.

 

Het Israëlische bestuur heeft bij verre de betere reputatie wat betreft het waarborgen van ieders religieuze vrijheden en toegang voor iedereen. Een deling van de Oude Stad zal zeker in de eerste jaren of decennia de toegang en het aanzien zwaar schaden, want zonder een uitgebreid systeem van (grens)controle is dit niet door te voeren.

 

Avineri bespreekt hieronder een nieuw voorstel tot een soort van internationalisering, nl. onder gemeenschappelijk religieus bestuur: "The lord of the universe may be the sovereign of all creation, but thus far he has not been able to establish any effective military or police force capable of enforcing his authority on earth."

 

 

Wouter

______________________

Tue., September 11, 2007 Haaretz
Not under God's sovereignty
By Shlomo Avineri
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/903386.html

The matter of Jerusalem is without a doubt the hardest nut to crack in reaching an Israeli-Palestinian agreement. The ideas resurfacing before the regional summit in November include the proposal to remove the "sacred basin" in Jerusalem from any sovereign authority, Israeli or Palestinian, and to leave supervision with representatives of the three monotheistic religions. Sovereignty, so it has been said, will be "in God's hands."

We may understand the distress of those seeking a solution for Jerusalem; however, this suggestion is far from providing an answer to the problem. The main reason for doubting the proposal's efficacy is the fact that the international system - at least since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 - has been built on the principle of territorial sovereignty. This principle not only deposits supreme authority over a territory in the hands of a single entity - the ruling state - but also gives it responsibility to enforce this authority, with all the consequences this entails.

It is not by chance that no territorial or international conflict has ever been solved by giving sovereignty to supra-national entities or by not clarifying the matter. Everywhere such an experiment has been tried, it has failed. No populated region lacks a sovereign authority, as the question of sovereignty answers who is legitimately entitled to employ force.

First of all, we must understand that "God's sovereignty" cannot be implemented: The lord of the universe may be the sovereign of all creation, but thus far he has not been able to establish any effective military or police force capable of enforcing his authority on earth.

Secondly, none of the three monotheistic religions has a single legitimate body that is authorized to speak in the name of all of its adherents. There is no authorized worldwide Christian representative: The Vatican represents only Catholics. It cannot be assumed that the various Orthodox churches or Protestant churches would agree to let the Vatican represent Christianity, or that they would all be able to unite.

 

Anyone who wants to see how "the Christians" manage anything jointly should come see the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Only police (currently Israelis, formerly Jordanians, British and Ottomans) have prevented generations of Catholics, Orthodox, Copts and Ethiopians from coming to blows. The same applies to Islam: At a time when Shi'ites and Sunnis are murdering one another in Iraq, and Sunnis are blowing up the Shi'ites' most sacred mosques in Karbala and Samarra, and vice versa, it is hard to imagine a single pan-Islamic body that could take responsibility upon itself. It goes without saying that with respect to Judaism, too, there is no international entity accepted by all the factions. It is clear that the Chief Rabbinate, which is an Israeli entity, could not represent all Jews. Moreover: Radical religious groups - both Muslim and Jewish - are the main obstacle to peace. Putting religion's most sensitive place on earth in their hands only invites disaster.

Any solution to the Jerusalem problem must offer an unambiguous answer to dozens of practical questions, such as who will prevent Jewish extremists from bursting onto the Temple Mount or who will disperse Muslims who try to stone Jews praying at the Western Wall. A creative solution is needed for the holy places in Jerusalem, but this will necessitate placing the control in the hands of someone capable of maintaining the agreements. There are all kinds of possibilities for joint Israeli-Palestinian control (perhaps with Jordanian or Saudi elements). However, putting the matter into the hands of religious entities is not a part of the solution, but rather would only exacerbate the problem.

Israël lobby - Walt en Mearsheimer's irrationele obsessie

Een verrassende weerlegging van Walt en Mearsheimer met verwijzingen naar de -soms verre- geschiedenis.

_________________________

 

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/09/walt_and_mearsheimer.php

 

The Irrational Obsession

 

By Lee Smith

 

 

Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer laid out the ostensible thesis of The Israel Lobby last year in an article of the same name published in the London Review of Books. They wrote that, "For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel."

 

This is false. Washington's relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in which we protect the world's largest known reserves of oil to ensure the stability of global markets, has since the mid-1930s been the US's vital regional interest and arguably the most important American interest save homeland security. This fact may be easily impressed upon the intellect of any American who has been in a car, but Walt and Mearsheimer are less interested in the strategic realities of US Middle East policy than in painting in broad strokes the background to events of the last few years. In effect, the authors of The Israel Lobby are trying to explain why the world has gone crazy.

 

Both scholars are products of the realist school of International Relations theory, which holds that states are self-interested rational actors. With The Israel Lobby, they want to show why the US government went off the rails, especially regarding the invasion of Iraq. From Walt and Mearsheimer's point of view, Saddam Hussein's regime had been contained and posed no immediate threat to the US, and war against an Arab nationalist dictator was a distraction from the war on Islamist terror. Since realism holds that states are rational actors – and even Saddam, though cruel, was not irrational – the only explanation for the US's patently irrational decision to depose him is that some non-state actor must have gummed up the machinery.

 

Once Walt and Mearsheimer are able to identify the cause for American irrationality – not the Jewish state, but the lobby for the Jewish state – they walk their thesis backward in time to the '67 war when, in their account, this deeply irrational relationship began. But here is one sticking point among many that Walt and Mearsheimer cannot account for: If realism holds that states act rationally in pursuit of their own interests, then how did Washington get away with acting irrationally for forty years? Either Washington has not acted irrationally, or Walt and Mearsheimer's realist model is irrational, or both.

 

The notion that states are rational actors is grounded in yet another convention – that there is something called an international system and it is based on respect for state sovereignty. Scholars and IR theorists often derive this principle from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 when treaties concluding the thirty and eighty years wars enshrined ideas like the equality between states, the right to self-determination and non-intervention. Though wars set state interests against each other, the so-called Westphalian system itself is relatively immune to internal challenges to its logic. Indeed, the creation of new states in the aftermath of the First and Second World Wars enhanced the notion of state sovereignty even if many of these newfangled political institutions, like Iraq, did not have the cohesive identity that held together European nation-states. The genuine threat to the international order, as the paranoid worldview contends, comes from non-state actors, like the pope, communism, anarchism and, of course, international Jewry.

 

Consider the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a document that only makes sense in the context of the international order of state sovereignty. The charge that the Jews killed Christ is ahistorical; that is, in the Christian scheme of things it is an accusation applicable at all times, or at least until the resurrection. However, the belief that Jews have dual loyalties arises at a particular historical moment – when political sovereignty is invested in the idea of the state. By definition, a Jew cannot be either loyal or disloyal to, say, the Catholic Church; a Jew can only betray a political body defined primarily by something other than religious belief, like the European nation-state.

 

Islam, a political order and a revealed religion, accounted for this issue by relegating both Jews and Christians to the status of second-class citizens, dhimmis: Obviously the infidels do not owe their chief loyalty to the commander of the faithful so they will be accorded very limited power or none at all. It is only under the international system that the question arises: What would happen if Jews got power? With loyalty only to the narrow interests of their tribe, Jews would make sure everything turned out well for Jews across the world, no matter how much blood and treasure it costs anyone else as the rational order of states comes crashing down around us all – all except for the Jews.

 

The key difference between most anti-Semitic tracts of the pre-Holocaust period and The Israel Lobby is Israel itself; after all, Zionism, arises under the same auspices as the Protocols – the international system of state sovereignty. Theodor Herzl believed that once the Jews had a state of their own and the Jews could take their place among nations, the Jewish problem would go away and Jews would become like everyone else. However, as The Israel Lobby shows, the irrational obsession with Israel as the root of all problems in the Middle East and US policy there, the willful misrepresentation of Israeli policies, and holding the Jewish state to standards in war and peace that not even the United States cares to observe, never mind, say, the Islamic Republic of Iran – Herzl on this count at least was wrong. A Jewish state has done nothing to curtail anti-Semitism.

 

Hence, Zionism's great achievement partakes of the assumption that anti-Semitism will always exist. It gave Jews, for the first time in two thousand years, political and military power as a defense against those who rant about the "International Jew," "Jewish influence," the "Jewish Lobby" and their concomitants solutions to "the Jewish Question." Hitler, it is true, is different from the Iranian president who advocates a "World Without Zionism," but that is because the Jews have a state and an army to protect themselves and not because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has neither Panzer tanks nor the Luftwaffe at his disposal.

 

It is curious that Walt and Mearsheimer maintain that the US would have a good relationship with a state like the Islamic Republic of Iran were it not for the Israel lobby and the narrow self-interest of this non-state actor. What makes their belief so odd is not just Tehran's genocidal rhetoric, or that the Iranians have been clear about their intentions towards American interests and allies in the region – US hegemony in the Persian Gulf, threats against the Sunni Arab powers as well as Israel – nor even the fact that Iran has effectively been at war with the US since the '79 revolution. No, rather it is that IRI's project for the Middle East is a direct assault on the theoretical conceit on which Walt and Mearsheimer have built their careers.

 

In Iraq, Iranian assets are determined to tear Iraq to pieces; in Lebanon, Iran's client Hezbollah has created a state within a state; and in Gaza, the Iranian-funded Hamas has established an Islamic emirate that for now at least puts an end to any ideas about a Palestinian state. Iran is making a very cogent argument through force of arms and oil receipts that the international system of state sovereignty does not suit its rational self-interest. Why are Walt and Mearsheimer blind to the Iranian project for the Middle East? Because of the Israel lobby. The idea of Jewish power has made them irrational.

 

---

Lee Smith is a Washington, DC-based writer and visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute. He's a frequent contributor to the Weekly Standard on Middle East issues.

__,_._,___

Zweedse cartoon affaire

Na het verschijnen van een cartoon van de profeet Mohammed in een Zweedse krant, is er een soort mini-cartoon affaire uitgebroken. Nadat moslims in Zweden en de Organisation of the Islamic Conference, de officiële organisatie van alle islamitische landen, hun ongenoegen hadden uitgesproken en excuses geëist, kreeg men die woensdag van de ambassadeur van Zweden in Saoedi-Arabië. De secretaris van de OIC vond dit echter niet voldoende, en eiste maatregelen om dergelijke voorvallen in de toekomst te voorkomen:

"What we are simply saying is that freedom of expression does not entail freedom to insult. There has to be a way to stop this. There are certain values that every country abides by. There are red lines in all societies. We want them to know that we don't mind their criticism of our religion but our Prophet is off limits. We will never allow such insults," Ihsanoglu told Arab News yesterday.

Welke 'red lines' zijn dat voor, bijvoorbeeld, Saoedi-Arabië? Met het tekenen en publiceren van beledigende cartoons hebben ze daar veel ervaring. Het lijkt erop dat de regel die men voorstaat is dat iedereen beledigd mag worden, behalve de islam en de profeet. Ieder land is vrij om dergelijke wetten in te stellen, maar het vreemde is dat men verwacht dat Europese landen dezelfde wetten gaan invoeren. Het is alsof de Sovjet-Unie indertijd van de VS had verlangt het bespotten van Lenin en Stalin te verbieden. Oeps, daarmee bedoel ik natuurlijk niet te zeggen dat Europa en Arabische landen met elkaar in oorlog zijn. Ik bedoel dat het eisen dat een ander land totalitaire wetten instelt om JOUW staatsreligie of staatsideologie te beschermen tegen 'belediging' nogal absurd is, en ook betrekkelijk nieuw. Nog absurder is het misschien dat hier steeds meer aan wordt toegegeven.

Overigens vertolkte de secretaris van de OIC de mening van veel moslims:

In the wider Muslim world, meanwhile, the apology was met with huge skepticism. "They will continue to provoke us. For them, it is simple: They will call it freedom of expression. And that is it. The one big lesson that we learned following the Danish cartoon controversy is this: Boycott their products and then they get the message," said Mateen Abdul Rahman, a Jeddah-based expatriate. "We are already circulating e-mails identifying Swedish products to boycott."

Okee, boycot dan maar. Misschien krijgen we dan ook weer eens autovrije zondagen.

 

Ratna
________________

Swedish Envoy Apologizes for Caricature
Siraj Wahab, Arab News
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=101123&d=13&m=9&y=2007

JEDDAH, 13 September 2007 - Sweden's Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Jan Thesleff apologized to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) for the publication of a caricature of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in a Swedish newspaper.

Thesleff offered his deepest apologies for the controversy created by the publishing of the hurtful depiction during his meeting on Tuesday with OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu at the 57-member organization's headquarters in Jeddah.

The publication of the caricature in the Swedish newspaper, Nerikes Allehanda, on Aug. 18 sparked a furious debate in the Swedish media on freedom of expression and prompted Muslims in Oerebro, where the newspaper is based, to hold protests.

Ihsanoglu conveyed to Thesleff his "concerns that this kind of irresponsible and provocative incitement in the name of defending freedom of expression was leading the international community toward more confrontation and division."

In a previous statement, Ihsanoglu had strongly condemned the newspaper for publishing the blasphemous caricature saying it was an irresponsible and despicable act with malicious and provocative intentions in the name of freedom of expression. "The caricature was intended solely to insult and arouse the sentiments of Muslims of the world," he said. "The international community was well aware of the serious impact of such publications that were globally felt during the controversy created by the publication of similar cartoons in a Danish newspaper last year," he said. Ihsanoglu called on the Swedish government to take immediate punitive action against the artist and the publishers of the cartoon and asked for their unqualified apology.

The Swedish ambassador informed Ihsanoglu that his government had taken careful and serious note of his statement and acted in a proactive manner at an early stage. "Sweden feels that the best possible action to resolve the crisis is to choose the path of dialogue," he said and pointed out that Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt had taken immediate steps by offering his personal regrets to the Muslim community in Sweden.

"Sweden is a country where people of different faiths can live together side by side," the Swedish prime minister said in his statement late last month. "The foundation of this, our social model, is mutual respect and understanding, but also a desire for joint repudiation of offensive acts as well as acts of violence or aggression."

While expressing regret, the Swedish prime minister pointed out that Sweden's social model is based on the premise that politicians must not pass judgment on freedom of the press and expression.

Ihsanoglu welcomed the prime minister's statement and the Swedish envoy's apology. However, he felt, there was a need for a legal mechanism for stopping the recurrence of such extreme provocation.

"What we are simply saying is that freedom of expression does not entail freedom to insult. There has to be a way to stop this. There are certain values that every country abides by. There are red lines in all societies. We want them to know that we don't mind their criticism of our religion but our Prophet is off limits. We will never allow such insults," Ihsanoglu told Arab News yesterday.

He said by intentionally offending the sentiments of 1.3 billion Muslims, these caricaturists were leading the international community toward more confrontation and division and providing extremist and deviant ideologies with valuable ammunition.

Also, according to many Muslims, all these calls for dialogue between the Muslim world and the West become meaningless in the face of such extreme provocation. They are a waste of time. Dialogue should not be two monologues in two different directions. It will not and does not lead to any better understanding; it does not lead to any change in positions.

In the wider Muslim world, meanwhile, the apology was met with huge skepticism. "They will continue to provoke us. For them, it is simple: They will call it freedom of expression. And that is it. The one big lesson that we learned following the Danish cartoon controversy is this: Boycott their products and then they get the message," said Mateen Abdul Rahman, a Jeddah-based expatriate. "We are already circulating e-mails identifying Swedish products to boycott."

There are others, however, who think Muslims should simply stop responding to such provocation. "They are provoking us because they know we can be provoked," said Zainab Fallata, a female entrepreneur.

 

 

*** Balanced Middle East News ***
MidEastweb http://www.mideastweb.org
Subscribe - mail to mewnews-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

MewBkd - Background & analysis -
mail to Mewbkd-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

News Letter -  our commentary -
mail to mideastweb-subscribe@yahoogroups.com