Is een nucleair Iran af te schrikken?

 

Vaak wordt beweerd dat met een nucleair Iran uiteindelijk wel te leven valt, omdat de afschrikking van bijvoorbeeld Israels kernwapens voldoende zal zijn het van een aanval af te houden, en er dus een wederzijdse afschrikking zal zijn zoals ook tijdens de Koude Oorlog. Los van de vraag of dit ook geldt voor een regime met een extremistische ideologie zoals Achmadinejad die meermaals heeft geuit, zijn er nog een paar andere problemen.

 

RP

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

What it will cost to live with a nuclear Iran

The answer to the question of whether or not we can live with a nuclear Iran is very simple. Today, nobody is willing to touch Iran when they are about to make a nuclear weapon. After they have this weapon, it is obvious that nobody will be ready to take on Iran no matter what they do. Iran's puppets, the Hezbollah, killed hundreds of US marines in Lebanon in the 1980s. The US did nothing. Iran is today advancing its plan to take over Lebanon through the same Hezbollah, and the US does nothing. When Iran is ready to take over Bahrain or Saudi Arabia, and has nuclear weapons, can anyone believe the US will do anything? (A.I.)

 

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

 

The High Price of Deterring Iran
Who would stop a nuclear Islamic Republic from swallowing the oil-rich Gulf and fomenting unrest in the Mideast?

 

By EMANUELE OTTOLENGHI

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124259185503527891.html

 

 

As Iran's presidential elections near, there is renewed optimism that some sort of great bargain could be struck with Tehran. The hope is that a new face may come to represent Iran after the June 12 vote and with the Obama administration prepared to engage the Islamic Republic, an accommodation about its nuclear program may yet be found.

 

According to this line of thinking, Iran's threats to wipe Israel off the map are not serious. Iran is supposedly not so irrational that it would launch a first nuclear strike against the Jewish state. Surely, the mullahs know what would happen next -- Israel would annihilate Iran. In other words, a nuclear Iran can be contained.

 

"Deterrence will work with Iran," as General John Abizaid, former Centcom commander and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said in 2008. "Despite what their crazy president says, I doubt seriously whether the Iranians are interested in starting a nuclear war."

 

This may turn out to be a dangerous miscalculation. There is a murderous streak in Iran's public discourse that calls for Israel's destruction and "Death to America." This is also a regime that without hesitation sacrificed thousands of its youth to clear minefields in the war against Iraq during the 1980s. It would be reckless for Jerusalem and Washington to dismiss the rants against the "Great Satan" and "Little Satan" as mere rhetoric. They are the rallying cries of a regime whose raison d'être is to roll back America's influence in the Middle East and usher in Israel's demise.

 

But let's assume Iran's nuclear quest does not necessarily serve the logic of apocalyptic politics. Let's assume Iran could be deterred from using the doomsday weapon. The question is can we afford and do we even understand the price of such deterrence? Even a rationally acting nuclear Iran may cause unacceptable harm to Western interests.

 

The atom bomb would enable Tehran to spread the Islamic Revolution without pushing the button. A nuclear weapon is an incredible force multiplier and -- as U.S. President Barack Obama aptly said -- constitutes a game changer. The uneasy peace that a nuclear equilibrium may guarantee tells us next to nothing about the conventional proxy wars nuclear powers tend to fight against one another.

 

During the Cold War, the price of the balance of terror was the recognition of spheres of influence. If Iran goes nuclear, the Western world will have to negotiate a Middle Eastern Yalta with Tehran -- one that may entail a retreat of U.S. forces from the region and an unpleasant bargain for the Gulf states and Israel. And given the geographic extent of Iran's ambitions, lines will be harder to draw than at Yalta.

 

Who would stop a nuclear Iran from swallowing its energy-rich neighbors or from fomenting Shia unrest in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere across the region?

 

Conflicts that we find difficult to resolve today will become impossible to fix, much like conflicts in Africa and Central America had to wait for the collapse of the Soviet Union in order to come to an end. While Iran may refrain from striking Israel directly, its proxies -- Hamas and Hezbollah -- will redouble their attacks and make peace between Israelis and Palestinians impossible. And a Hezbollah backed by a nuclear Iran would be able to cement its dominance in Lebanese politics, much to the detriment of the country's shrinking Christian population.

 

There are other dangers. "We're on the cusp of an explosion of proliferation," former U.S. National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft recently said in a testimony to the U.S. Senate, "and Iran is now the poster child." Fearing the specter of Iranian-Shiite domination, the mostly Sunni Arab regimes will seek their own nuclear insurance. The Mideast's nuclear arms race may have already begun. The IAEA said earlier this month that it found traces of weapons-grade uranium in Egypt. The Cold War nuclear balance, though, was largely predicated on the principle of mutually assured destruction between only two powers. Can a more complex and unpredictable multipolar M.A.D. work?

 

Even the Soviet Union and the United States teetered on the brink of nuclear war at least once, during the Cuban missile crisis. Here were two countries that knew each other well, had diplomatic relations, and kept important official and discreet channels of communication open. And yet we came close to nuclear Armageddon.

 

Iran and many of its prospective nuclear adversaries do not share any of those close channels -- there is no Israeli embassy in Tehran, no Iranian embassy in Washington, no hotline between the Supreme Leader and the Saudi King. The potential for misreading, misunderstanding and miscalculating is immense, especially as Iran will pursue its revolutionary aims of changing the region in its own ideological image under the shadow of the bomb.

 

Yes, Iran may be deterred from launching a first nuclear strike. But we may not be able to afford the price for this achievement. That is why prevention must remain the non-negotiable policy goal of the free world.

 

============

Mr. Ottolenghi is the director of the Transatlantic Institute and the author, most recently, of "Under a Mushroom Cloud: Europe, Iran and the Bomb" (Profile Books, 2009).

 

Israel besteedt 20 nieuwe huizen aan in nederzetting Westoever

Lekker handig zo vlak voor het vertrek van Netanjahoe naar de VS. Het lijkt soms alsof men dat soort dingen expres doet, om te laten zien aan de internationale gemeenschap dat men nog steeds niets van internationale relaties en gevoeldigheden begrijpt en ook absoluut niet in staat is het eigen beleid goed over te brengen en goodwill te kweken. En dan iedereen maar roepen dat de Israelische 'hasbara' zo succesvol is. In je dromen (c.q. nachtmerries, afhankelijk van waar je staat).

 

RP

---------------
 

Israel issues tenders for WBank settlement

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g8j9Plre6UWn5VBucwqyhBnYNM2Q

JERUSALEM (AFP) — Israel issued construction tenders for a West Bank settlement just days before its premier was to hold his first official meeting with US President Barack Obama, army radio reported.

Tenders to build 20 housing units in the Maskiot settlement in the north of the occupied West Bank were issued after the green light was given from the defence ministry, it said.

The news came on the same day that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was to meet Obama in Washington for the first time since both assumed power earlier this year, and amid deep disagreements over the peace process.

Israeli settlements in the West Bank are among the main obstacles in the stumbling peace talks with the Palestinians.

Obama's administration has said several times that Israel should stop all settlement activity, in line with the obligations that it undertook as part of the 2003 international "roadmap" peace plan.

Netanyahu, who heads a largely right-wing government in favour of expanding Jewish settlements, is expected to tell Obama that Israel will continue construction in existing settlement blocks, a senior aide told AFP last week.

The construction in Maskiot, site of a former Israeli military base, was authorised by the government in late 2006 in part to rehouse Israelis who had been removed from settlements in the Gaza Strip in 2005.

More than 280,000 Israeli settlers currently live in the occupied West Bank and some 200,000 live in settlements in annexed east Jerusalem, according to the Peace Now anti-settlement watchdog.

 

Geheim overleg tussen Israël, de PA en Jordanië over vredesbesprekingen

 

Terwijl Peres - wederom - pleit voor vrede en Israelische concessies, proberen een aantal Knessetleden van de Likoed te verhinderen dat Netanjahoe in Washington met een Palestijnse staat zal instemmen. Het is duidelijk dat de meningen hierover in Israel, zowel binnen de regering als het publiek, zeer verdeeld zijn.

Wat betreft het Arabische vredesplan: zolang de Arabische staten iedere aanpassing en ruimte over zaken te onderhandelen uitsluiten, maken zij het op hun beurt de tegenstanders van vrede in Israel ook wel erg gemakkelijk.

Hopelijk wordt deze toenadering van Peres positief beantwoord.

RP

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

Israel, PA hold secret meetings over renewing peace talks
By Avi Issacharoff  - Haaretz

Last update - 02:44 18/05/2009
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1086327.html

 

DEAD SEA, Jordan - Israel and the Palestinian Authority have launched discreet contacts recently regarding a renewal of negotiations, Haaretz has learned.

The meetings come despite the PA's public position to the effect that negotiations will not be resumed until Israel freezes construction in West Bank settlements.

President Shimon Peres on Sunday said that Israel is interested in renewing peace talks with the Palestinians immediately.

Peres met with Jordan's King Abdullah on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum on the Middle East, on the Jordanian side of the Dead Sea.

The two also apparently discussed the Palestinian peace plan Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to present to U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington.

The Jordanian king has been urging that peace negotiations be advanced. Abdullah views a stalemate in talks as a threat to the stability of his regime.

Peres hinted that Israel would be ready to accept some of the principles of the Saudi peace initiative and told the king that renewed peace talks with the Palestinians would jump-start the Arab peace plan. Peres also said that Israel views favorably the prospect of a peace agreement with virtually the entire Arab world.

He added, however, that some aspects of the Saudi peace plan, such as a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem, would have to be negotiated.

Peres attracted a great deal of press attention while at the World Economic Forum, and his speech was attended by people from throughout the Muslim world.

Enquete: 40% Israëlische Arabieren gelooft niet dat Holocaust plaatsvond

 

Eenzelfde percentage erkent Israels bestaansrecht wel als een democratische Joodse staat. In 1995 verwierp slechts 7% Israels bestaansrecht. Ook op andere gebieden laat de enquete een achteruitgang zien in de Arabische houding tegenover de Joodse bevolking van Israel:

 

Other disturbing findings in the poll: In 2008, about 54% of Israeli Arabs said they would agree to send their children to a Hebrew school, while five years [earlier] the figure stood at 70.5%. Meanwhile, at this time 47% of local Arabs object to having a Jewish neighbor, while in 2003 the figure stood at 27.2%.

 

Als uit enquetes blijkt dat een significant deel van de Joodse Israeli's geen Arabische buren wil of hun kind niet naar een Arabische school zou sturen, staan velen klaar om op het racistische karakter van de staat Israel en haar inwoners te wijzen, maar dit wordt uiteraard aan de wrede onderdrukking door de zionisten geweten. Dat Arabieren in Israel meer rechten en welvaart kennen dan in de omliggende Arabische staten, wordt voor het gemak even vergeten.

 

Het positieve nieuws is dat, wanneer er hoop en vooruitzicht is op vrede, deze percentages weer kunnen dalen. In het artikel formuleert de professor die de enquete heeft gehouden dat als volgt:

 

"This shows us that the trend is not consistent, and that we have ups and downs. Everything depends on the State of Israel's domestic and foreign policies." 

... Of van het beleid van de Palestijnse Autoriteit en de Arabische staten, en de vraag of zij bijvoorbeeld bereid zijn het Arabische vredesplan op punten aan te passen en Israels bestaansrecht te erkennen. Israels verharde positie is immers voor een groot deel het gevolg van de tweede intifada die in reactie kwam op vergaande vredesvoorstellen, en de duizenden raketten uit Gaza als reactie op de Israelische terugtrekking in 2005.

 

RP

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

40% of Israeli Arabs: Holocaust never happened

Disturbing poll results: Shocking percentage of local Arabs are Shoah deniers, less than half recognize Israel's right to exist as Jewish democratic state; survey shows significant deterioration in Arab attitudes in past six years

 

Sharon Roffe-Ofir - YNET

Published: 05.17.09, 22:48
www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3717323,00.html

 

Only 41% of local Arabs recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish democratic state, while 40.5% of Arab Israelis believe the Holocaust never happened, a new poll conducted by Haifa University revealed.

The poll's disturbing findings will be presented Monday in a conference to be held at the University of Haifa and compared to past figures.

Professor Sami Samocha, who conducted the survey, has been monitoring Arab-Jewish relations for 35 years and says the sensitive ties have seen ups and downs that closely related to current affairs.

"The most moderate year was 1995 - the golden era of the Rabin government, the Oslo Accord, and the attitude to the Palestinian people," he said. "Four years later, the great disappointment with the Netanyahu government and the October events worsened the situation."

In 1995, only 7% of Arab-Israelis said the State had no right to exist. Meanwhile, the figure rose to 22% last year. On another front, last year 56% of Arab-Israelis agreed to limit the right of return to Palestinian areas only. In a similar poll conducted in 2003, 72% of respondents supported the same statement.

'Great rift of October 2000'

 

Meanwhile, 41% of Arab-Israeli respondents took part in some kind of protest activity last year, while only 28% did so six years ago.

"The figures are a derivative of what we've known in recent years," Professor Samocha said, and pointed to the Gaza blockade, the Second Lebanon War, and the aftermath of the October 2000 Riots as exacerbating factors.

"In the past three or four years we are witnessing the results of the great rift of the October 2000 riots," he said. "Should this continue, the negative positions will grow stronger."

Other disturbing findings in the poll: In 2008, about 54% of Israeli Arabs said they would agree to send their children to a Hebrew school, while five years later [=earlier?] the figure stood at 70.5%. Meanwhile, at this time 47% of local Arabs object to having a Jewish neighbor, while in 2003 the figure stood at 27.2%.

Samocha noted that the current figures are reminiscent of the 1976 data.

"This shows us that the trend is not consistent, and that we have ups and downs," he said. "Everything depends on the State of Israel's domestic and foreign policies."

Meerderheid Likoed tegen Palestijnse staat

 

Uit onderstaand artikel blijkt dat Netanjahoe met een rechtsere fractie te maken heeft dan hij had gewild, en dat hij zich waarschijnlijk wel voor een tweestatenoplossing zou willen uitspreken. Andere fracties zijn nog rechtser. Obama zou het Netanjahoe makkelijker kunnen maken als hij hem ook een paar Arabische concessies zou kunnen bieden, zoals een erkenning van Israels bestaansrecht en de bereidheid zich flexibel op te stellen wat betreft de vluchtelingen.

RP

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

Likud ministers ready to resist PA state
Gil Hoffman , THE JERUSALEM POST

May. 18, 2009
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212399287&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

 

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu would not be able to advance the formation of a Palestinian state, due to the wide majority against it in the Likud faction, MKs who oppose a two-state solution said Sunday.

They said that unlike the fight against the disengagement from the Gaza Strip, when only 15 MKs out of 40 dared challenge then-prime minister Ariel Sharon, this time around, two-thirds of the Likud faction would defy a potential effort by Netanyahu to withdraw from parts of Judea and Samaria.

The rebellion against Sharon also suffered from a lack of leadership, because the only Likud minister who actively opposed him was then-minister-without-portfolio Uzi Landau.

This time around, no fewer than seven Likud ministers vocally oppose a Palestinian state: Gideon Sa'ar, Bennie Begin, Moshe Ya'alon, Yuli Edelstein, Gilad Erdan, Yisrael Katz and Moshe Kahlon.

"MKs might be afraid now to say that Bibi doesn't have a majority for two states in the faction or other Likud bodies, but later on they will make their voice heard," said Likud MK Danny Danon, who wrote Netanyahu on Friday warning him against concessions to US President Barack Obama in their Monday meeting.

"In any public campaign against a Palestinian state, Begin and Ya'alon would be at the top," he added.

Ya'alon and Begin declined to take upon themselves the leadership of such an effort at this juncture.

"There is no reason to hurry," Begin said. "We are waiting until the meeting with the president of the United States in which I am sure the prime minister will present the views of the government and the Likud."

Due in part to the efforts of Likud activist Moshe Feiglin, Likud members elected a slate of MKs that was more right-leaning than Netanyahu had wanted. The only MKs in Likud considered relative doves are ministers Silvan Shalom, Dan Meridor, Michael Eitan and Yossi Peled, and MKs Haim Katz and Carmel Shama.

"It is clear that many in Likud were elected due to certain ideas, and the Likud was chosen to lead the country," a Likud minister said. "It could be that the entire government will have to stand up to countries that are asking Israel to do things that it cannot do in order to achieve a certain kind of peace."

Likud MKs said they were concerned about reports from Netanyahu's flight to Washington that he would not rule out the formation of a Palestinian state in his meeting with Obama. They said they had been worried since they read an article in The Jerusalem Post on May 4 about AIPAC delegates lobbying Congress for a two-state solution with the blessing of the Prime Minister's Office.

"We must also continue to insist on the absolute Palestinian commitment to ending terrorist violence and to building the institutions necessary for a viable Palestinian state living side-by-side, in peace with the Jewish state of Israel," read a letter that AIPAC delegates lobbied their congressmen to sign.

The lobbying took place after a meeting between AIPAC heads and Netanyahu in Jerusalem. When asked about the letter, Netanyahu's adviser Ron Dermer said he did not think there was a difference between the positions of Netanyahu and AIPAC.

"This article was the first sign," Danon said. "When Sharon endorsed a Palestinian state in a speech at Latrun [in 2003] we were taken by surprise. This time, we have to be ready. The first step is telling Netanyahu that if he will be too flexible, he will have problems at home."

Meretz leader Haim Oron said he would not be surprised or disappointed if Netanyahu caved in to Obama on the Palestinian state issue.

"Accepting two states for two peoples is not a concession to the Palestinians but the supreme interest of Israel," Oron said. "We cannot expect a man who has zigzagged throughout his entire political career to suddenly act differently now. The test of the Bibi-Obama meeting is not whether Netanyahu will leave it in peace, but whether it will create a basis to advance to peace."

Zorg om Shoaib Choudhury, moslim met vredesboodschap uit Bangladesh

 

Een nieuwe update over de rechtszaak in Bangladesh tegen journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, die zich openlijk uitsprak tegen de dreiging van de radikale islam in zijn land en verzoening met Israël predikte, waar hij in 2003 heen wou reizen om op een schrijverssymposium in Tel Aviv te spreken. Hij werd op het vliegveld aangehouden en ondermeer aangeklaagd wegens hoogverraad. Daarnaast werd hij door tegenstanders met de dood bedreigd en werd zijn kantoor vernield.

 

Dat 'de wereld' nog steeds bezorgd is om Choudhury lijkt wat veel gezegd. Landen als de VS en Australië zetten zich voor hem in, maar in Europa lijkt niemand wakker te liggen van wat er in Bangladesh gebeurd, of ook in Sri Lanka, waar zich onlangs een drama afspeelde in de strijd van het leger tegen de Tamil Tijgers (de oorlog daar zou in ruim 25 jaar tijd 70.000 levens hebben geëist!).

 

Voor het laatste nieuws omtrend zijn rechtzaak zie de speciale website Free Choudhury.

 

Wouter

 

 

Eerdere berichten over Choudhury en oproepen om brieven te schrijven:

13 okt. 2006: Bangladesh Journalist Choudhury on Trial for Supporting Israel

april 2007: Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury: dissident in Bangladesh

aug. 2007: Moslim Zionist Shoaib Choudhury uit Bangladesh

aug. 2008: Petition for Journalist Salah Choudhury in Bangladesh

okt. 2008: Voortzetting rechtzaak Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury in Bangladesh

_________________________

 

REGISTRATION NO: DA 5025 - VOLUME - 4, ISSUE -21, DHAKA, MAY 13, 2009

World Still Concerned about Shoaib Choudhury

http://www.interfaithstrength.com/images/Concerned.htm

Dr. Richard L. Benkin

 

Looking from the outside, one might conclude that the fight for Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury has reached an impasse. And while we seem well passed the time when every month brought new and significant actions by either the Bangladeshi government or Shoaib's defenders, it would be a mistake to conclude that the world has forgotten about the anti-Islamist Muslim. Not a week goes by when I do not receive at least one interrogatory about Shoaib Choudhury and his fight for justice. Sometimes, it is from the media; and even as I have been speaking about saving the Bangladeshi Hindus from government-tolerated discrimination; the events and radio shows always begin with the host asking me for an update on the fate of Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury.

Calls and emails come in from average citizens wanting to know if he is all right and what they can do to help. We still receive the occasional offer of asylum -something Shoaib consistently turns down because, as he makes clear, he is a Bangladeshi. "Let the radicals leave my country," he says at such times. I still get periodic questions about boycotting Bangladeshi goods; something I have been against to this point, by the way.

Significantly, however, there is continued concern on the part of governments, as well. Recent concern from the government of Australia is instructive. The Australian Foreign Ministry has expressed interest in meeting with me for an update on the status of the Shoaib Choudhury case and to see what might be proper for it to do. In a recent letter to Australian Senator Ursula Stephens, the Foreign Ministry wrote that "The Australian Government will continue to encourage the Government of Bangladesh to ensure that Mr. Choudhury's trial is conducted in an expeditious and transparent fashion in accordance with proper judicial process and that his human rights are respected at all times." Stephens is a high ranking member of the ruling party, who is close to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. She also has been an outspoken advocate for Shoaib Choudhury.

The Foreign Ministry's letter indicates where the next phase of the international struggle for justice in his case is heading. At first, that struggle was focused on gaining Shoaib's release from imprisonment and torture in accordance with legal norms and protection of his human rights. After several government officials admitted that the charges against him were "false…and only maintained to appease the radicals," efforts focused on preventing this miscarriage of justice from entering and thus polluting the Bangladeshi legal system. Ultimately, the former (BNP) government went forward with the case and in doing so, decided their political need to "appease the radicals" was more important than the damage that doing so would bring to the people of Bangladesh. Specifically, the decision has meant that every piece of legislation intended to provide tariff relief for Bangladeshi imports to the United States has been defeated without every seeing the light of day. (The United States imports about 70 percent of Bangladesh's garment exports, and has free trade agreements and other relationships with several garment exporting countries who have been steadily eroding Bangladesh's place in the US market as a result.) Several members of the Bangladeshi government were told that these consequences would follow their continued need to placate radicals, as "the American people do not intend to spend their money to support their enemies." These included the current and former Bangladeshi ambassadors to the United States and former Home Minister Lutfuzzaman Babar, who conveyed the information to former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia. Yet, the rulers in Dhaka decided to place their personal political interests above the needs of the Bangladeshi people.

Once the legal proceedings began, internationally famed human rights attorney Irwin Cotler filed an amicus curiae brief that identified almost two dozen ways in which the case against Shoaib Choudhury violated Bangladesh's own laws and international human rights laws. Dr. Cotler has defended such luminaries as Nelson Mandela, Andrei Sakharov, and Saad Ibrahim, as well as Shoaib Choudhury. And since then, the proceedings themselves have been carried out contrary to accepted principles of justice worldwide. For instance, despite the fact that the charges were brought five and a half years ago, the government has not been able to provide even a shred of evidence to support them. At one point, it alleged that Shoaib wrote an article entitled, "Hello Tel Aviv" for the American paper USA Today; a completely fictitious allegation that has never been proven in the least. The trial judge told the prosecution that it would have to produce proof of the article, or he would dismiss the case. That was on August 6, 2008, yet the government never even attempted to provide any evidence, and the judge never raised the issue again. The government's case for the past seven months has consisted of one witness, the officer in charge of Shoaib's 2003 arrest, Abdul Hanif. Moreover, he has simply not shown up to testify for the past several successive court dates. There is a legal principle in civil societies world wide that "justice delayed is justice denied"; and so in any society of laws, the court would have issued a warrant for the witness to testify or dismissed the case. The government of Bangladesh has done neither. These various illegal irregularities on the part of the Bangladeshi government, prompted one US official to suggest to me in April that "because they have no case against Shoaib, the Bangladeshis are making the legal process his punishment."

And indeed, there is no movement toward any resolution of the case by the Bangladeshi court system, causing many people to question the independence of the Bangladeshi judiciary. If it proceeds along the lines of its own law, according to one expert here, it "can vindicate its entire legal system by following its own laws and dropping the case."

Many people have wondered if Bangladesh's Awami League government will break from the policies of its predecessor or continue them, making only cosmetic changes to enhance it own image. On January 12, several members of the US Congress sent a letter to the then newly elected Prime Minister. They represented Republicans, Democrats, committees that determine appropriations and trade legislation, and the US House Bangladeshi Caucus. In the letter, they congratulated Sheikh Hasina on her electoral victory and hoped she would bring "democracy, integrity and prosperity to Bangladesh. As a first step in achieving these worthy goals," they noted, "we urge your government to quickly drop all charges against Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury." "Doing so," they noted at the end of their letter, "will take a significant step toward restoring faith in the Bangladeshi government and removing a significant obstacle in Bangladeshi-American relations."

This is unusually direct language between governments, and it establishes that there has been no change in US policy in this matter, at the very least since the US Congress passed a resolution condemning the action in 2007. It also means that Bangladeshi goods will continue to be assessed higher tariffs than those of its competitors as long as it proceeds to persecute this journalist in opposition to its own constitution and international norms of human rights.

The current Bangladeshi government came to power with a promise to end that sort of injustice and corruption that has plagued Bangladesh in the international arena for years. The fact that it has done nothing to demonstrate that it is no different from previous governments is starting to take hold among many in Washington and elsewhere. Some legal experts are starting to see if the continued persecution Shoaib Choudhury can be the basis for a case against Bangladesh at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands. Others are investigating to see if it can be used to exclude Bangladesh from participating in UN peacekeeping forces.

Some people who previously were willing to wait decided against that in February when Shoaib was attacked in newspaper office by, among others, operatives of the ruling party. The fact that the government has refused to take action on Shoaib's complaint against his attackers—who are known to the police—further confirms the belief that the Awami League government might not be what it advertised itself as prior to the election. There is even some considered opinion that it is doing so at the expense of the Bangladeshi people, at the behest of one of its supporters who has a personal vendetta against Shoaib.

In a meeting at the Bangladeshi Embassy in Washington, Ambassador M. Humayun Kabir addressed Bangladesh's inability to gain favorable trade status in the US by asking me, "How can you hold up aid for 150 million people because of one man?"

"How can I? How can you?" I responded. "You're the ones prosecuting a case you have admitted to be false. You're the ones telling the rest of the world that you place the feelings of the radicals above your own laws. All you have to do is stop it. How can I? How can you do this to your people?"

For the past six months, Shoaib's defenders in and out of several governments, have taken a wait and see approach wondering if Bangladesh will defend its own legal integrity and stop this illicit prosecution or not. Many are beginning to believe that the Awami League government has already given them its answer.

 

Turkse meisjes van Cyprus verkocht aan Arabieren in jaren '30-'40

Een onbekende tragedie.

 

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

Women for sale: Turkish girls sold to Palestinian Arabs

http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2009/05/women-for-sale-turkish-girls-sold-to.html

The big question that is not answered, is whether this sort of trade is still being carried on, and the answer is probably yes.

 

Turkish girls sold to Arabs
Cyprus Observer, 15 May 2009

 

 

'Girls sold to the Arabs' is a tragedy which has been heard about and spoken about by Turkish Cypriots for generations but there aren't many details about the essence of the issue, about why and how it happened. Under which conditions did Turkish Cypriots, who are known as loving parents, sell their children? and most importantly, what did those girls live through?

 

Two Turkish Cypriot journalists, Neriman Cahit and Eralp Adanir, were curious about this issue and they started researching. During their research on the island, scans through libraries and scientific sources proved to be insufficient, so they went directly to the source of the problem.

 

Journalist Neriman Cahit and TV producer Eralp Adanir went to Amman with the help of the Emel-Isam Muhareb family and interviewed the Turkish Cypriot women who were given to the Arabs as brides. They found some of these women, who are in their seventies, in Palestine Refugee Camps. They spoke to the children and grandchildren of some.

 

Neriman Cahit and Eralp Adanir are preparing to publish the result of their interviews and research with all the details and they say: "The amount of information we gathered in Amman in one week could not be obtained in Cyprus in several years. It is an unbelievable tragedy."

 

In Palestine Refugee Camps, these two journalists interviewed Besire from Pergama and Hatice from Aytotorolu, who were married to Palestinian Arabs at the age of 12-14 and have grandchildren today. They say: "They are most sad about the fact that their families in Cyprus never called them after they got married. They all feel offended by Cyprus and their families. They never forgot the Turkish language and they even taught their husbands and children." It is believed that about 3,000 to 4,000 girls from Cyprus were sold to Palestinian Arabs as brides during the economical problems between 1930 and 1950.

Verwachtingen van gesprek Netanjahoe met Obama

Netanjahoe zal zich wel/niet voor een Palestijnse staat uitspreken, en Obama zal Israel onder druk zetten om concessies te doen aan de Palesitjnen, of is van mening dat het niet zijn plaats is om Israels veiligheidsbehoeften te bepalen, en de VS zal de druk op Iran om zijn kernprogramma op te schorten wel/niet opvoeren. Het is allemaal gissen en speculeren.

RP
--------------

Last update - 11:43 17/05/2009
Netanyahu unlikely to back Palestinian state in Obama meet
By Barak Ravid, Natasha Mozgovaya and Mazal Mualem 
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1086052.html

 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is unlikely to state support for the establishment of a Palestinian state when he meets with U.S. President Barack Obama at the White House Sunday, an aide to the prime minister said. However, in a bid to soften edgy relations with Washington, Netanyahu will propose that joint teams draft a new road map for the Palestinian peace process and a new strategy on Iran.

At the meeting with Obama, Netanyahu intends to emphasize his intention to resume the peace talks with the Palestinians soon, but with the participation of the moderate Arab states. Establishing diplomatic relations between Israel and the moderate Arab states could significantly advance the peace process with the Palestinians, he will say.

Obama is expected to support this concept, but will ask Netanyahu to start out with a gesture toward the Palestinians and to halt all construction in the West Bank settlements. Obama will also ask Netanyahu to declare Israel's support for the "two state for two people's" principle.

A senior Jerusalem source said Saturday that the visit was intended to present only preliminary positions. "At the next stage the teams will try to reduce the differences between the sides and examine ways of advancing the peace process and strategic matters," the source said.

Netanyahu's aides said the preparation talks before the meeting were effective and no conflict was expected at the dialogue with Obama.

President Shimon Peres spoke to Netanyahu a few times last week and impressed on him the importance of avoiding an overt confrontation with Obama at any cost. This could have disastrous implications on Israel's national security, Peres said.

Netanyahu will ask Obama to tighten the coordination between the two administrations in defense and state affairs, and to set up communication channels and joint work teams on the Iranian and Palestinian issues, a source in the prime minister's bureau said.

Contrary to Netanyahu's aide, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Saturday that the prime minister was ready to declare his support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"I believe Netanyahu is ready for a process whose end is two states for two peoples," Barak, who is also chairman of the Labor party, told Channel 2 shortly before Netanyahu left for Washington. "Even Netanyahu understands that the ultimate end of the process is two peoples living side by side in peace and security," he said.

However, an aide of the prime minister's said Netanyahu is unlikely to display flexibility on the "two states for two nations" principle. He will tell Obama that any agreement would oblige the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish nation-state.

Netanyahu is expected to tell the American president that he objects to halting construction in the settlements completely, but is willing to take steps to dismantle the illegal outposts, an aide said.

He will tell Obama that the outposts are a legal matter which Barak has been negotiating with the settlers, in order to reach an agreement.

Netanyahu will also tell Obama that without dealing with Iran it would be difficult to advance the peace process with the Palestinians. He will ask Obama to coordinate the American-Iranian dialogue with Israel, and stress the importance of acting firmly against Iran should this dialogue fail.

Ahead of Netanyahu's trip, meanwhile, senior Obama administration officials said in a press briefing Saturday that Middle East peace agreements were in U.S. national interests. They also noted that Obama and Netanyahu would discuss the issue of West Bank settlement building.

"The meeting on Monday is a continuation of a very close relationship between the U.S. and Israel - very close friendship and cooperation on many issues," said one official. "This is [the president's] first opportunity to take the next step to deepen and expand this cooperation. And I'm quite sure it will be the first of many such conversations."

 

 

Obama over dreiging Iran voor Israel

Geruststellende woorden voor al diegenen die menen dat Obama Israel 'in de uitverkoop wil doen' om de relaties met de Arabische wereld te verbeteren. Hij is er echter niet op ingegaan waarom de VS Israel de laatste tijd meermaals heeft gewaarschuwd Iran niet aan te vallen. Zijn uitspraken hieronder lijken dat juist tegen te spreken. Daarbij kun je je afvragen waarom zo'n waarschuwing niet binnenskamers gedaan had kunnen worden, zodat Iran niet mee kan luisteren. Laat Iran vooral de druk op de ketel voelen, dat vergroot de kans dat de toenadering van Obama succes heeft.

RP
----------

Obama: Iran existential threat to Israel
May. 17, 2009
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

 

 

In an interview published ahead of his meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Monday, US President Barack Obama reiterated comments made by other top officials, saying that he understands why Israel considers Iran an existential threat.

 

"I understand very clearly that Israel considers Iran an existential threat, and given some of the statements that have been made by [Iranian] President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, you can understand why," Obama said in an interview with Newsweek, which was published on its Web site and will appear in print in the magazine's May 25 issue.

 

With respect to concerns Israel might carry out an air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, the US president said that since Israel is "right there in the range" of Iranian missiles, "their calculation of costs and benefits are going to be more acute."

 

Obama remarked that he did not think it was his place to "determine for the Israelis what their security needs are."

 

When asked about how he intends to explain the US policy to Netanyahu in their upcoming meeting, Obama said "the approach we are taking is one that has to be given a chance and offers the prospect of security, not just for the United States but also for Israel, that is superior to some of the other alternatives."

 

While he reiterated that his administration was going to reach out to Teheran and "try to shift off of a pattern over the last 30 years that hasn't produced results in the region," Obama stressed that he was not naïve and that other options were also being considered.

 

"I've been very clear that I don't take any options off the table with respect to Iran. I don't take options off the table when it comes to US security, period," the president told Newsweek.

 

"We want to offer Iran an opportunity to align itself with international norms and international rules. I think, ultimately, that will be better for the Iranian people. I think that there is the ability of an Islamic Republic of Iran to maintain its Islamic character while, at the same time, being a member in good standing of the international community and not a threat to its neighbors," he said in the interview.

 

Obama emphasized that while he hoped for the best, he was prepared to adopt harsher policies, together with the international community, if the Islamic republic failed to cooperate and halt its nuclear program.

 

"I assure you, I'm not naive about the difficulties of a process like this. If it doesn't work, the fact that we have tried will strengthen our position in mobilizing the international community, and Iran will have isolated itself, as opposed to a perception that it seeks to advance that somehow it's being victimized by a US government that doesn't respect Iran's sovereignty," said Obama.

 

Also Sunday, the Washington Post reported that US and European officials had said that if Iran fails to begin serious talks by September or October - when the UN Security Council is set to convene - the Obama administration and its allies would pursue imposing tough sanctions on Teheran.

 

=============

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212390277&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

 

 

Benefietavond Don't Forget Gaza kiest toch partij

Hoe kun je als organisatie een benefietconcert voor Gaza organiseren en de rapper Appa uitnodigen, en tegelijkertijd volhouden geen partij te kiezen in het conflict tussen Israel en de Palestijnen? Dat is absurd. Dat de opbrengst naar de Free Gaza Movement gaat geeft eigenlijk al duidelijk aan dat partij wordt gekozen, want dat is een zeer partijdige aktiegroep.

 

,,Wie bommen gooit vraagt om martelaren,'' zegt GroenLinks-parlementarier Mariko Peters. ,,Je kunt kiezen: of je volgt de Nederlandse regering en steunt Israël. Dan kun je rustig slapen, dan noemen ze je geen antisemiet. Net als de zalen in Amsterdam en Utrecht, die deze avond niet wilden hebben. Of je kiest dat andere kamp, dat van de vrijheid.''

 

Wat een vreselijke demagogie! Ik schaam me haast zo lang lid te zijn geweest van deze partij, of eigenlijk is het een schande dat een partij die zegt tegen geweld en oorlog te zijn, tegen het ophitsen van mensen en bevolkingsgroepen en tegen populisme en goedkope oneliners, nu zelf dergelijke taal bezigt. Ga maar lekker slapen, Mariko, en geniet van de vrijheid die Hamas&co te bieden hebben. Hun oproepen alle Joden te doden, hun vergelijkingen van Joden met apen en honden en hun holocaustontkenningen zijn geen antisemitisme, maar slechts legitiem verzet tegen de Israelische bezetting, toch?

 

RP

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

 

Watt schreeuwt mee: ik ben 'n Palestijn!

http://www.ad.nl/rotterdam/stad/3221316/Watt_schreeuwt_mee_ik_ben_n_Palestijn.html

AD - 14 mei

 

 

ROTTERDAM - ,,Wat deden de laffe politici in Nederland?'', vraagt rapper Appa zich af. ,,Ze steunden Israël!'' Het zit hem hoog.

,,Excuses aan de organisatie als ik nu te ver ga. Maar ik heb een kankerhekel gekregen aan de Nederlandse politiek. Motherfuckers!''

Op de benefietavond Dont Forget Gaza staan de slachtoffers in de Gaza-strook centraal. De organisatie was niet welkom in Utrecht en Amsterdam en ook elders in Rotterdam bleef de deur dicht voor de belangeloos optredende hiphopartiesten. De organisatie stelde vooraf nadrukkelijk geen kant te willen kiezen tussen Israël en Palestina. Daarom stelde Watt de zaal wél gratis beschikbaar. Maar op het podium verhardde de opinie gisteravond al snel.

,,Wie bommen gooit vraagt om martelaren,'' zegt GroenLinks-parlementarier Mariko Peters. ,,Je kunt kiezen: of je volgt de Nederlandse regering en steunt Israël. Dan kun je rustig slapen, dan noemen ze je geen antisemiet. Net als de zalen in Amsterdam en Utrecht, die deze avond niet wilden hebben. Of je kiest dat andere kamp, dat van de vrijheid.''

De opbrengst - geschat op 13.000 euro - gaat naar de Free Gaza Movement. Ook bij woordvoerster Caoimhe Butterly zit de woede diep: ,,De overheden in Europa zijn medeplichtig aan de massamoord in Gaza.''

 

Lekker kwetsen: Daniël Teeboom over Wilders en Von der Dunk

Ik ben het niet met Daniël Teeboom eens dat het zionisme in zekere zin te vergelijken is met de radikale islam, omdat beide de politieke manifestatie van een religie zouden zijn. Het Jodendom is niet alleen een religie maar ook een volk, en heeft altijd ook nationale en etnische kenmerken gehad. Sommige Joodse feestdagen zijn nationaal, sommige religieuze gebruiken zijn gebonden aan het land en in gebeden wordt opgeroepen elkaar volgend jaar in Jeruzalem te zien. Het zionisme is de Joods nationale beweging, en in die zin te vergelijken met Arabische en nadere nationale bewegingen, maar niet met de radikale islam. Bovendien was het zionisme van oorspong een seculiere beweging, en waren juist de (ultra-)orthodoxen er fel tegen, omdat alleen God de Joden naar een staat en nationale onafhankelijkheid zou kunnen leiden. Veel orthodoxe Joden zijn nog steeds niet zionistisch, en sommigen zijn uitgesproken anti-Israel.

 

Voor de rest is het een goed en prikkelend stuk, maar het maakt de misverstanden over wat zionisme (en dus ook antizionisme) is er helaas niet minder op.

 

RP

-----------

 

Lekker kwetsen

Letter & Geest - 16 mei 2009

Daniël Teeboom

http://www.trouw.nl/opinie/letter-en-geest/article2760341.ece/Lekker_kwetsen_.html

Israël met nazi-Duitsland vergelijken is razend populair. Daniël Teeboom vraagt zich af waarom dat gewoon mag, terwijl Geert Wilders beschuldigd wordt van 'haatzaaien' als hij kritiek uit op de politieke islam.

 

Onlangs kwam ik al zappend bij het programma 'Advocaat van de duivel' terecht. Daarin zag ik hoe Geert Wilders in een schijnproces werd aangeklaagd door Hassnae Bouazza en Thomas von der Dunk. Het tweetal moest een jury ervan overtuigen dat Geert Wilders niet deugt. Advocaat Theo Hiddema voerde de verdediging. Hij deed zijn best, maar hij kon niet verhinderen dat de jury zijn virtuele cliënt op alle belangrijke punten veroordeelde.

Het was een fascinerende uitzending. En ik was bijzonder tevreden met de uitspraak.

De jury was van oordeel dat Geert Wilders zich schuldig maakt aan discriminatie, dat hij oproept tot geweld tegen moslims en aanzet tot haat. Zijn vergelijking tussen de Koran en 'Mein Kampf' en zijn uitspraak dat hij de islam een afschuwelijke religie vindt, vond de jury zwaarder wegen dan het feit dat Wilders zegt geen hekel te hebben aan moslims individueel.

Ik zag hoe zijn aanklagers genoten van hun overwinning. En ook ik was in mijn nopjes. Niet omdat ik vind dat ze gelijk hebben, maar omdat het juist Thomas von der Dunk en – in mindere mate – Hassnae Bouazza waren die de taak op zich hadden genomen om de vloer aan te vegen met Geert Wilders.

Von der Dunk ken ik van zijn stukjes op de Volkskrant-site. Hij is een man die Israëlsympathisanten ervan beticht dat ze een Ich habe es nicht gewußt-houding aannemen tegenover de Israëlische mensenrechtenschendingen in de bezette gebieden. Ook heeft hij geschreven dat Israëliërs zich gedragen als het nieuwe Herrenvolk, en dat de Joodse staat oorlogszuchtig zou zijn.

Hassnae Bouazza doet het op een andere manier. Zij constateerde in Vrij Nederland dat de islamitische geestelijke Joesoef al-Karadawi – een man die zijn steun uitspreekt voor zelfmoordaanslagen tegen Israëlische burgers – eigenlijk heel gematigd is omdat hij onderscheid maakt tussen het zionisme en Joden in het algemeen.

Opvallende opmerkingen voor mensen die bereid zijn Wilders te beschuldigen van het aanzetten tot haat. Tijdens die televisierechtszaak stond het bestaan van de radicale islam en islamitisch terrorisme niet ter discussie. De jury werd niet gevraagd om een oordeel te vellen over het gelijk van Wilders. Het ging alleen om de vraag of Wilders de dingen mag zeggen op de wijze waarop hij dat doet – ongeacht of het klopt wat hij zegt. Hassnae Bouazza en Thomas Von Der Dunk waren van mening dat Geert Wilders dat niet mag. Dat vond ik leuk, want zo bevonden ze in feite zichzelf schuldig.

Mij is het namelijk een raadsel waarom een vergelijking tussen Israël en nazi-Duitsland niet bedreigend zou zijn voor Joden, terwijl een vergelijking tussen de Koran en 'Mein Kampf' dat wel is voor moslims. De Koran wordt immers niet met vernietiging bedreigd, dat kan ook helemaal niet. Terwijl Israël wel degelijk te maken heeft met een existentiële bedreiging.

Bovendien bestaat er een lange geschiedenis van geweld tegen Joden als gevolg van het Israëlisch-Palestijnse conflict, en niet alleen uit islamitische en Arabische hoek. Linkse organisaties als de Duitse Revolutionären Zellen en het Japanse Rode Leger hebben in het verleden aanslagen gepleegd tegen Joodse doelen binnen en buiten Israël. Als gevolg van dit anti-Joodse geweld, uit linkse, islamitische en Arabische hoek, moeten bijvoorbeeld synagogen in Nederland bewaakt worden, terwijl dat met moskeeën gelukkig niet het geval is. Ook al staat Wilders met dertig zetels in de peilingen en moet er op 4 mei ernstig gewaarschuwd worden tegen het opkomend fascisme.

Ik begrijp niet waarom er rekening dient te worden gehouden met de gevoelens van moslims als het gaat om hun Profeet en het boek dat hij geschreven zou hebben. En waarom tegelijkertijd Joden niet moeten zeuren als ze bezwaar maken tegen vergelijkingen tussen zionisten en nazi's, of tegen het gelijkstellen van de Israëlische bezetting aan de Shoah.

Op een of andere manier wordt altijd gedaan alsof het zionisme uit de lucht is komen vallen, en niets te maken heeft met het Jodendom. Maar het zionisme is niets anders dan het Jodendom in politieke vorm – in zekere zin te vergelijken met de radicale islam, dat immers de islam als politiek platform neemt.

Hoe is het mogelijk dat mensen het ene moment beweren dat er een onderscheid bestaat tussen Jodendom en zionisme, en het volgende moment Geert Wilders beschuldigen van aanzetten tot haat en geweld tegen álle moslims wanneer hij kritiek heeft op de radicale islam? Als Joden zich niet aangesproken hoeven te voelen bij kritiek op het zionisme, waarom is dat voor moslims anders bij de kritiek van Wilders?

Joden en Israëlsympathisanten hoeven van Von der Dunk en de zijnen geen begrip te verwachten. Wat wij wel mogen verwachten is de eeuwige beschuldiging dat „iedereen die kritiek op Israël heeft meteen antisemitisme wordt verweten".

Dat is raar. Het gaat hier om zaken die Joden 'nodeloos kwetsen', die aanzetten tot haat en mensen tegen ons opzetten. Onder welke noemer dit alles valt zal mij een zorg wezen. De voortdurende hetze tegen Israël, en het feit dat kritiek daarop wordt afgedaan als vervelend gezeur over antisemitisme is merkwaardig – zeker als je de storm van protest ziet uit vooral linkse kring zodra iemand kritiek levert op de islam. Dat heet dan 'racistisch'.

Ik denk dat er een behoefte bestaat om moslims te zien als een kleine, kwetsbare minderheid, een soort Ersatz-Joden, die in bescherming dienen te worden genomen tegen het Kwaad. Als Geert Wilders de Koran wil verbieden – wat ik overigens een uiterst verwerpelijk idee vind – dan komt Harry de Winter op televisie klagen over het Oude Testament en Israël. Telkens weer wordt in het islamdebat de vergelijking met Joden gemaakt, en vaak wordt het lot van de Joden tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog in stelling gebracht.

Maar moslims zijn geen Joden. Ruim twintig procent van de wereldbevolking is islamitisch, zo'n anderhalf miljard mensen, terwijl Joden met hun dertien miljoen nauwelijks een half procent uitmaken. Natuurlijk hebben beide godsdiensten ook veel overeenkomsten. De islam is een soort combinatie van de universele boodschap van het christendom, gecombineerd met de zucht om voor alles regels te verzinnen – een neiging die we kennen uit het Jodendom. Maar het Jodendom is geen universele godsdienst, het wil maar op één plaats de dienst uitmaken: in Israël. Terwijl de islam, net als het christendom, zijn universele boodschap met iederéén wil delen. Je zou kunnen zeggen dat het Jodendom voor Palestijnen is wat de islam is voor de wereld.

Als Geert Wilders met zijn kritiek moslims in een hoek plaatst, en bovendien aanzet tot geweld, dan zet natuurlijk iedereen die kritiek heeft op Israël aan tot geweld tegen Joden. Hoe komt het dan dat Thomas von der Dunk Joden wél mag beledigen en kwetsen, en Israëliërs ervan mag beschuldigen dat ze zich gedragen als een Herrenvolk? Waarin onderscheiden Joden zich van moslims dat kritiek op de politieke islam álle moslims treft, maar kritiek op het politieke Jodendom géén aanval is op iedere Jood?

Omdat wij met weinigen zijn, en zij met velen. Omdat Leon de Winter Theo van Gogh voor de rechter sleepte, in plaats van zijn keel door te snijden. Omdat er 56 islamitische staten zijn en er maar één Israël bestaat. Omdat het een stuk makkelijker is de held te spelen als je zeker bent van de overwinning.

 

Feedblitz Israel-Palestijnen Nieuwsblog: handig maar niet onfeilbaar

 

Voor het gemak van onze lezers bieden we hen de mogelijkheid om de berichten van deze blog dagelijks als e-mail te ontvangen via Feedblitz.

Helaas gaat er wel eens wat mis. Soms komt er een dag of langer geen Feedblitz, zoals de laatste 2 dagen (althans bij onszelf). Er kunnen dan geen nieuwe berichten zijn geplaatst die dagen, maar de afgelopen dagen hadden we wel berichten geplaatst, en het is ook ons een raadsel waar die gebleven zijn. De website van Feedblitz geeft nergens melding van problemen en vermeldt ze wel als verzonden!

Als u een dag uw Feedblitz mist kunt u op onze blog kijken of er niet toch nieuwe berichten zijn.

 

Een ander probleem is dat er onlangs een groep abonnees is verwijderd door het systeem, waarschijnlijk in verband met overijverige spamfilters. Ontvangt u langere tijd geen Feedblitz van onze blog terwijl er wel nieuwe berichten zijn geplaatst, dan kunt u uw spamfilter controleren of ze daarin zijn blijven hangen. Zo ja, markeer ze dan als 'geen spam' en/of voeg de afzender toe aan de lijst met veilige afzenders. Zitten ze ook niet in uw spamfilter, dan zult u zich opnieuw moeten abonneren of ons een mailtje sturen zodat wij u een nieuwe aktiveringsmail sturen voor het abonnement.

 

Behalve voor email kunt u overigens ook kiezen voor een abonnement via een van de diverse messenger diensten, of zich abonneren op de rss-feed.

 

Wouter en Ratna

 

E-mail Israel-Palestina.Info

________________________

FeedBlitz

Ontvang onze artikelen dagelijks per e-mail. Na verzenden van Uw e-mail adres komt U in een bevestigingsscherm van Feedblitz; na accorderen daar ontvangt U een bevestigingsmail thuis, waarin U op de link moet klikken om het abonnement definitief te maken.


Voorbeeld | Powered by FeedBlitz

 

Aharon Abramovich over Israel, vredesonderhandelingen en de media oorlog

Een interessant interview, maar dit ben ik niet met hem eens:

"I don't accept the axiom that we are not doing well. With Gaza, the world understood that Israel cannot stand for its citizens coming under fire. It happened as a result of years of diplomatic and media efforts. All in all, if you look at the broad spectrum of the diplomatic community, our stance among Western countries isn't too bad."

De wereld vond vooral dat Israel disproportioneel geweld gebruikte tegen een wanhopig en machteloos volk in een openlucht gevangenis vanwege een paar primitieve raketten die nauwelijks schade aanrichten, dit na een jarenlange blokkade om de bevolking te straffen voor hun democratische keuze voor de legitieme verzetsbeweging Hamas.

Israel werd veelvuldig met de nazi's vergeleleken, Gaza met een concentratiekamp en Israels bestaansrecht onkend. Als je het probleem niet ziet wat betreft de berichtgeving over Gaza dan ben je echt stekeblind.

RP

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

Last update - 13:42 15/05/2009
'Israel's PR appeal isn't lost, it just needs a new label'

By Aluf Benn and Barak Ravid
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1085834.html

 

 

The recent changing of the guard in Jerusalem, and the introduction of Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud-led government, has also brought about retirement for Israel's longest-running ministerial director.

Although Aharon Abramovich kept a low profile in the seven and a half years he ran the justice and foreign bureaus, he had a significant role in deciding on and executing some of the country's most important diplomatic and security events: the Disengagement from Gaza, Olmert's defunct Convergence Plan, the Second Lebanon War, the U.S.-sponsored Annapolis peace conference, and the IDF incursion into Gaza, also known as Operation Cast Lead.

Abramovich sat down with Haaretz after his retirement, and dished out some thoughts on how Israel might improve its face abroad.
According to Abramovich, the first step for the newly instated government is to adhere to the two-state solution.

"We're not improving our state of affairs by avoiding a solution," Abramovich said. "The world is invested in the Palestinian story day and night. There has not been a single official visiting from abroad who has not raised the Palestinian issue, be they from Europe, Asia or the U.S."

"The world expects us to reach a compromise and an agreement with the Palestinians. It has been decades since negotiations began, and the issue was never taken off our agenda. And if it is taken off, it would not be in our interest, but the other around," Abramovich added.

"Say we're allowed to rule the Palestinians for another few decades. That is not in our interest, even if the world complies. They'll say 'We get it, Israel isn't going out of there so let's discuss the alternatives including granting voting rights [to Palestinians], and a country other than a Jewish one.' That's the danger."

The reality of a Jewish democratic state

Abramovich, 58, went through a difficult personal transformation before he recognized the importance of land partition and the foundation of a Palestinian State.

He was raised by Etzel fighters: his grandfather was one of the organization's founders; his uncle took part in the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, and was killed in the operation; and his father participated in the organization's first operational action, was exiled by British authorities to Kenya and Eritrea and escaped captivity. His mother was part of the King David operation's auxiliary unit.

"Two banks hath the Jordan River' wasn't only sung in my house then, it's still sung today," he said.

"At first, as a young man, I believed in those ideals, and even today I consider then impossible dreams. In the reality of a Jewish and democratic Israel those dreams had to be discarded."

The ideological change began during the Yom Kippur War, in which he served as an artillery officer and took part in the shelling of Damascus.

"The war represented a departure since it made it clear that it would be difficult to achieve the Greater Israel ideal if we want to remain a democracy," he said.

"It continued with coming to terms with the peace agreement which Menachem Begin signed with Egypt."

He was recruited to governmental service by former minister Meir Sheetrit, who knew him from their joint work in the Jewish Agency. Abramovich was then appointed director of the Justice Ministry in Ariel Sharon's first government in 2001.

He went on to work under ministers Tommy Lapid and Tzipi Livni, with whom he also moved to the Foreign Ministry. The two had never met, but the common "fighting families" background brought them together.

"Anyone who grew up in an Etzel fighters' family has a common identity. It's a unique and worthy bunch, very committed to the state," he said.


Both sides will concede

And so the children of Etzel fighters, Livni and Abramovich, found themselves leading negotiations with the Palestinians geared at a permanent peace treaty and land division.

Former prime minister Ehud Olmert also ran parallel talks with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Although no agreement was reached during those negotiations, Abramovich was left with an optimistic conclusion: "There was a sense that both sides were interested in making concessions. It wasn't only Israel that was yielding."

Where did you achieve progress?

"Some progress was made with regard to borders, security issues and refugees. There was no progress in regard to Jerusalem. I can assert clearly that there were no talks concerning Jerusalem," he said.

Do the Palestinians you were dealing with really accept the notion of a division based on the 1967 borders, or is it all just smoke and mirrors, as the right-wing claim?

"We negotiated with serious people who would like to see an independent Palestinian state and understand that it will be established in borders that even narrower than those of 1967, and they accept that concept. They also had interests to protect, and their desire to reach a compromise was just as powerful as ours."

So, where's the problem?

"Conceding borders and settlements is very difficult for Jews and Zionists. Regarding security, any compromise that represents less than what we have today is difficult. Issues such as water and aerial control can also immediately affect the quality of life and security of Israeli citizens."

"But Jerusalem is the most contested issue. We didn't discuss it with the Palestinians, and I'm comfortable for not discussing it, since I don't know if I could have handled it emotionally. My family came here in the 19th century. My father's underground name was 'Yerushalmi' [Jerusalemite]. My grandfather had the fact that he never left Jerusalem inscribed on his grave. I think that's the most difficult issue, one which I do not have an answer for."

And for the Palestinians?

I think for them the refugees represent a more significant national emblem."


Worried about Lieberman

Abramovich said that negotiations were held based on the assumption that an agreement would end conflicts and annul any future disputes. He affirmed that Israel did in fact ask the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state prior to the Annapolis peace conference, a request denied and which was subsequently never raised again. Incoming Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's statement saying Annapolis understandings are no longer relevant to the new government.

"Lieberman said that he supported the Road Map. The Road Map includes discussing Jerusalem and any of the other issues required to reach a Palestinian state. Lieberman said that he was for two-states, but that the current vehicles to achieve a solution had not worked and new ones need to be considered. I think the old vehicles are still relevant. He may return to them after trying, or he may not," he said.

Abramovich was first exposed to the diplomatic issues during the 2005 Disengagement from Gaza, during which he was in charge of talks with evacuees and organizing the 'Pinui Pitzui' [Evacuation-Compensation] Act.

He says that already in the their first meeting, the Gush Katif residents had a document, prepared years ago with the aid of attorneys and accountants, which was to serve as a base for compensation calculations.

He is at peace with the evacuation of the Gaza settlements but said that, in hindsight, things should have been dealt with differently, and that Israel should not have ceded control on Philadelphi Route and should not have evacuated the settlements on the strip's northern border, both as a result of security concerns as well as so not to set a precedent of going back to the 1967 borderlines.

Working on the Disengagement brought Abramovich closer to then prime minister Ariel Sharon. Shortly before falling ill, Sharon put Abramovich in charge or examining the possibility of another unilateral withdrawal in the West Bank, what Olmert later dubbed the Convergence Plan. Sharon never had the chance to listen to the team's conclusions, which were given to Olmert just before the Second Lebanon War.

According to Abramovich, the Convergence report served as the base for United Nations Security Council resolution 1701, which ended the Second Lebanon War. The Convergence team looked into the possibility of positioning a multinational task force in the West Bank, and so Livni and Abramovich were first exposed to the idea which was later brought up as a possible exit strategy to the fighting in northern Israel.

The Foreign Ministry's proposals, which were being prepared as early as in war's second day, were ultimately realized in the Security Council's resolution. Both the war and the subsequent Winograd Commission report solidified the Foreign Ministry's position.

"I was at every place I thought I needed to be during Operation Cast Lead, in the most sensitive discussions and briefings," he said. It is his opinion that the Foreign Ministry should hold on to those achievements.

Abramovich's lesson from the war in Gaza earlier this year is that "The use of power is something which needs to be improved, the tools that are used in military campaigns."

"I don't know of any systems today that do not affect the civilian population, and in these kinds of systems the question should be raised as to what implements are used. There's a need to examine how these implements influence media concerns, how they influence the willingness of the international community to advance resolutions during fighting, and how they influence the various post-war investigations."

Is there a solution for Israel's media woes?

"I don't accept the axiom that we are not doing well. With Gaza, the world understood that Israel cannot stand for its citizens coming under fire. It happened as a result of years of diplomatic and media efforts. All in all, if you look at the broad spectrum of the diplomatic community, our stance among Western countries isn't too bad."

"There's the issue of addressing the general public. Over the years here in Israel, we've tried to reason with and convince everyone that when you see a newspaper picture with a child and a tank, that the tank is justified, because we are besieged and they are using children. But it's almost impossible to convince anyone that the tank is justified."

"That's where the idea of changing the label of Israel abroad. It's a notion that has yet to be executed, and one which I hope will be advanced by the next government. Israel needs to be identified as a living being, effervescent and breathing, and which, when aggravated, acts. We polled around the world about how we appear to people with no knowledge of the conflict."

"They asked random focus groups about their [conception of] various countries, and what they associate with them. When asked about Italy, people answered 'good wine, beautiful women, antiques.' When asked to draw an Italian house, they drew a garden or a backyard. When they're asked about Israel there's always silence, and no one says anything. The house holds only men, there's a security fence and cameras, and no vegetation. That's how the non-anti-Israel American sees an Israeli house, and that has to change.

Vluchtelingen en wapensmokkel van Egypte naar Israël en Gaza

Egyptian security forces last months discovered five smuggling tunnels along the country's border with the Gaza Strip, through which the Iran-backed Hezbollah militant group was allegedly planning to deliver explosives designated for terror attacks against Israel.

 

Er waren honderden tunnels onder de grens van Egypte met Gaza, dus dat schiet nog niet erg op. Israel had een deel daarvan gebombardeerd, maar veel zal inmiddels hersteld zijn.

 

For years Egypt tolerated tens of thousands of Africans on its territory but its attitude hardened after it came under pressure to halt rising numbers of Africans trying to cross into Israel.

 

Een suggestieve opmerking, die suggereert dat Israel medeplichtig is aan het doodschieten van migranten door Egypte. Israel heeft daar uiteraard nooit toe opgeroepen. Er zijn meerdere manieren voor Egypte om wat te doen aan de vele migranten die Israel proberen binnen te komen, waaronder ze zelf wat menselijker te behandelen. Vluchtelingen uit landen als Sudan worden in Egypte als grof vuil behandeld.

 

In eerder overleg tussen Israel en Egypte over het terugnemen van Soedanese vluchtelingen eiste Israel juist de garantie dat Egypte ze niet naar Soedan zou uitzetten. In Soedan zou hen namelijk de doodstraf wachten, want Israel bezoeken wordt daar als hoogverraad beschouwd, aldus Al-Ahram.

 

RP & WB

---------------------------
 

Egypt finds massive arms cache along Israel border
By Reuters

Last update - 12:06 15/05/2009
www./haaretz.com:80/hasen/spages/1085830.html  

 

Egyptian security forces have uncovered hundreds of weapons and explosive devices hidden along the Sinai Peninsula's border with Israel, the Arabic-language Al-Quds al-Arabiyeh reported on Friday.

According to the report, forces found 266 rockets, 40 mines, 50 mortar shells, 20 hand grenades and at least three anti-aircraft missiles.

No suspects have yet been arrested in the incident, security forces told the paper.

Meanwhile, the Lebanese newspaper Al-Mustakbal reported Friday that earlier this year Egyptian forces arrested four members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard suspected of organizing an espionage ring on Egyptian territory.

The ring was apparently headed by an Iranian intelligence official who entered Egypt using a forged Iraqi passport, according to the report.

Egyptian security forces last months discovered five smuggling tunnels along the country's border with the Gaza Strip, through which the Iran-backed Hezbollah militant group was allegedly planning to deliver explosives designated for terror attacks against Israel.

According to reports, the Hezbollah cell had coordinated its attacks with Israeli Arab citizens.

Also on Friday, Egyptian police shot and killed an African migrant near the border with Israel.

The man, who was shot four times in the chest and abdomen, was not carrying any documents proving his identity or nationality, the medical source said.

The security source said an Egyptian patrol detected him trying to infiltrate into Israel and ordered him to stop, opening fire when he did not.

For years Egypt tolerated tens of thousands of Africans on its territory but its attitude hardened after it came under pressure to halt rising numbers of Africans trying to cross into Israel.

In November, U.S.-based rights group Human Rights Watch called on Egypt to stop shooting African migrants.

Veel Palestijnse doden Gaza Oorlog onterecht als burgers geteld

 

De veel geciteerde statistieken van de Palestijnse mensenrechtenorganisatie PCHR over het aantal gedode Palestijnse burgers en militanten tijdens de Gaza Oorlog, blijken niet te kloppen. Veel volgens PCHR omgekomen burgers worden op de website van Hamas als strijders geëerd, en sommige burgers waren Fatah leden die door Hamas werden omgebracht. Ook de politiemannen die met name in het begin van het Israëlische offensief door bombardementen werden gedood, en bij de civiele slachtoffers zijn geteld, waren deels verbonden aan de militaire vleugel van Hamas.

 

Wouter

_______________

 

Doctored Gaza casualty claims accepted as 'proof' Israel committed war crimes

http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2009/05/doctored-gaza-casualty-claims-accepted.html

 

PCHR's Gaza casualty claims discredited (again)

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/digest_info.php?id=2417#PCHR

 

NGO Monitor - May 14, 2009

 

An in-depth report by the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzilya) has exposed the false casualty claims of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) regarding the Gaza fighting (January 2009). According to the report:

"by checking the names on the PCHR list against Hamas websites, we found that many of those claimed by PCHR to be civilians were in fact hailed as militant martyrs by Hamas. Others listed by PCHR as civilians killed in Israeli raids later turned out to be Fatah members killed by Hamas, some of them in execution style killings. While both PCHR and ICT consider civil policemen to be noncombatants, our researchers found that many of the civil policemen killed also held operational ranks in the Hamas military wing. In fact, due to the structure of the Hamas military, it was difficult to draw a clear dividing line between purely civilian police functions and activity in support of military operations."

Independent research by bloggers and Jonathan Dahoah Halevi confirm these findings, which follow criticism of PCHR from NGO Monitor and CAMERA.

PCHR claims that only 236 out of 1,417 fatalities were combatants (16.6%). The IDF figures contrast sharply with these numbers: 709 affiliated with terror organizations, 295 classified as "uninvolved [in hostilities]," and 162 not-yet-identified.

PCHR's "statistics" have been widely cited as authoritative by NGOs and the media.

 

Also, on April 29, 2009, PCHR "Call[ed] upon the PNA [Palestinian National Authority] to announce an immediate moratorium on the use of [the] death penalty," after a Palestinian court sentenced a defendant to death for "treason and selling Palestinian lands to Israel." While not commenting on the issue of the alleged "crimes," PCHR also condemned Palestinian penal codes that "violate[] international standards of fair trial and do[] not include fair and independent mechanisms of appeal."

 

Gematigde Arabieren waarschuwen tegen appeasement van islamisten

Gematigden in de Arabische wereld spreken zich uit tegen een te softe houding tegenover de extremisten zoals Hezbollah en de Taliban. Een milde opstelling tegenover hen versterkt ze juist in hun Jihad, ten koste van de gematigden en de gewone bevolking.

 

RP

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

Don't Just Take My Word for It: Arab Moderates Warn About Mistaken Western Policies

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/05/dont-just-take-my-word-for-it-arab.html

Barry Rubin - GLORIA

May 13, 2009

 

 

What do moderate Arabs think about what Westerners think about the Middle East? Usually, such matters are raised only in private conversation with those of long acquaintance in whom the speaker has personal trust. But now we have several statements by respected Arabs who are relatively liberal but also part of the intellectual establishment.

Thanks to MEMRI for gathering and translating these remarks. They could be just about the most important things you read about the Middle East this year.

As you go along, imagine the reaction of the conventional wisdom types if another American or European had said these things.

First up is Tareq al-Homayed, chief editor of al-Sharq al-Awsat, which might just be the best Arab newspaper in the world today. It combines the unusual characteristics of being both Saudi-owned yet relatively liberal.

Homayed explained that if the West is too lenient to extremists this is a grave mistake. Once you start talking to Hizballah you might as well negotiate with al-Qaida. "Openness for the sake of openness," he concluded, "makes the situation more complicated and sends the wrong message."

Khalil Al-'Anani in al-Hayat warned that the Obama administration's readiness to negotiate on a basis of making concessions with radical states and forces would teach Middle Easterners to conclude "that extremism is the most effective way to attract the U.S.'s attention, and to compel them to conduct dialogue." By showing weakness, the United States would ensure its enemies concluded that America was defeated and to make more demands. He even calls this policy one of "appeasement."

Another al-Hayat columnist, Elias Harfoush, reaches the same conclusion. Being too soft on the Taliban, for example, has brought no benefits to the Pakistani government but merely, "More murders and torture of those opposed to the movement and more suffering for the people" victimized by the radicals.

The West, he continued, just doesn't understand these Islamist movements, which equate Western efforts at dialogue with the West being defeated.

So also says the director-general of al-Arabiya television, the more moderate and UAE-backed competitor to al-Jazira, Abd al-Rahman al-Rashid. Rashid, former editor of al-Sharq al-Awsat, is one of the most courageous and articulate of the establishment liberals. I wrote about his work in my book, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East.

No matter how hard Obama tries to please Islamists, Rashid explains, it won't work. "Despite all [Obama's conciliatory actions], violence has increased….None of these elements have changed their positions–despite everything Obama has done since assuming the presidency. Every step [Obama] takes towards [his foes] will only prompt them to challenge him" without making any concessions of their own.

But why are these Arab intellectuals saying these things? Simple, Western mistakes strengthening the Islamist revolutionaries may destroy their societies and even result in their own murders. That's a good incentive for them to encourage the West to stand up to Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, the Taliban, al-Qaida, and the Muslim Brotherhoods.