dinsdag 28 september 2010

Geen 'zonder haat straat' in Palestina - oproepen tot haat in de Palestijnse maatschappij

 
Uit Joods Actueel:
 
Woensdag 22 September 2010 9:00

Stel je voor: je gaat shoppen in de Abou Jihad straat in Ramallah, genoemd naar het brein achter de dodelijkste buskaping ooit in Israël, je bent leerling van de Shahid (= martelaar) Sadam Hoessein school in Yaabad (Westbank), je neemt deel aan een jeugdvoetbaltoernooi in Tulkarem ter nagedachtenis van Abd Al-Basset, een terrorist die in 2002 op de Joodse Sederavond 31 burgers doodde, of je behaalt een gouden medaille op het Abu Iyad schermkampioenschap, genoemd naar de man die de dodelijke aanslag beraamde op het Israëlisch dorp tijdens de Olympische Spelen van München in 1972. Dagelijkse realiteit in Palestina? Palestinian Media Watch onderzocht dit fenomeen en bracht hierover in mei 2010 een rapport uit, From Terrorists to Role Models: the Palestinian Authority's  Institutionalization of Incitement. Savasorda stelt het voor.

Deze informatie is algemeen beschikbaar en bekend bij de media, en toch gaat het maar over een ding: de bouw in de nederzettingen en het einde van de bouwstop. Alle andere obstakels worden vergeten, verzwegen, genegeerd. Terwijl we toch in een vrij land leven.
 
 
RP
 

maandag 27 september 2010

VN "Mensenrechtenraad" misbruikt mensenrechten


De VN "Mensenrechtenraad" is zo'n ongeloofwaardige club dat zelfs de fanatiekste anti-Israel lobbyisten haar zoveel mogelijk negeren. Het is een groep slagers die het vlees van de concurrent keuren, en elke inspectie van hun eigen bloedworst blokkeren. Wonderlijk dat dit rapport van de "Mensenrechtenraad" serieuze media aandacht kreeg in Nederland, met enkel als voetnoot dat de raad "ietwat omstreden" is. Oy!
 
Hieronder een neutrale reactie op het rapport van de Israelische onderminister Danny Ayalon.
 
Wouter
_________________
 

The Jerusalem Post
UNHRC abuses human rights
By DANNY AYALON
09/27/2010 03:23
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=189354


Once again, a report has blamed an event almost solely on Israel while refusing to assign responsibility or even suitably investigate any other party.

Unsurprisingly, a United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) report has once again slammed Israel's acts of self-defense. The recently released report ostensibly investigating the events that surrounded the interception of the Gaza-bound Mavi Marmara in May is a modern blood-libel, and another nail in the coffin of the council's credibility. The full report is scheduled to be officially presented to the council on Monday.

While its name would seem to indicate a worthy body, the UNHRC has two sole functions: to defend serial human-rights abusing nations from reproach, and to revile and attack Israel.

The UNHRC, created in 2006, is the successor to the thoroughly discredited United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). When the mandate for the new council was debated, certain basic reforms and standards were proposed to ensure the commission's failures were not repeated. Unfortunately, few of the reforms received substantial support in the UN General Assembly, which refused to adopt them.

Those that were adopted have been abused.

The General Assembly resolution that created the council merely required member states to "take into account" a candidate's human-rights record when applying to the UNHRC. Not even a nation under sanction from the UN Security Council for human-rights abuses need refrain from seeking election.

During the application process, candidate nations make pledges of adherence to human rights standards by way of justifying their candidacy. These statements have been described as Kafkaesque in their deviance from reality and historical record. One glaring example is that of Saudi Arabia, which claimed a "confirmed commitment to the defense, protection and promotion of human rights."

The reality of course, is very different.

The US State Department's annual human rights reports consistently criticize Saudi Arabia for its serious human rights failings, including arbitrary arrest, discrimination against women, restriction of worker rights and lack of religious freedom.

However, Saudi Arabia is hardly alone, as only 20 of the 47 nations on the UNHRC are considered "free" by Freedom House, an independent NGO which monitors human rights and political freedoms. This means the majority of nations currently represented on the UNHRC do not allow basic freedoms for their own people, let alone concern themselves with global human rights.

Another example of this farce was the recent election of Libya to the UNHRC.

Libya received support from 155 of the General Assembly's 192 member states in a secret ballot, angering a coalition of 37 human rights organizations which described Libya as one of the most repressive societies in the world.

ONE OF the root problems is the influence of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) within the UNHRC.

The UNHRC heavily weights membership on its council to nations from Africa and Asia – two continents where the OIC has considerable influence. The OIC controls the lion's share of the world's energy resources, including oil, gas and uranium.

The OIC and its allies have an automatic majority on the UNHRC, and this is represented in the council's workload.

Human Rights Watch claims that the OIC has "fought doggedly" and successfully within the UN Human Rights Council to shield states from criticism, except when it comes to criticism of Israel. The OIC's mantra has been that the council should work cooperatively with abusive governments rather than condemn them.

This has led to the absurd situation in which Israel is condemned 33 times by the UNHRC out of a total of 40 countryspecific condemnations, while the UNHRC expresses only "deep concern" over Sudan and praises its cooperation.

In addition, the UNHRC adopted a unique decision to discuss human rights violations committed by Israel in all of the council's meetings. It has also been criticized for redirecting attention to the fate of Muslim minorities within non- Muslim countries, but diverting attention from the treatment of ethnic minorities in Muslim-majority countries, such as the oppression of the Kurds in Syria, the Ahwaz in Iran, the Al-Akhdam in Yemen or the Berbers in Algeria.

Furthermore, the OIC has been at the forefront of silencing freedom of expression.

An amendment to the duties of the special rapporteur on freedom of expression, passed by the Human Rights Council on March 28, 2008, has acted against this very freedom. The OIC and its allies have sought to ban anything they deem as criticism of Islam. Some nations were outraged by this amendment, which they claimed "turns the special rapporteur's mandate on its head."

Nevertheless, it is on the subject of Israel that the OIC appears to have unique influence. When the UNHRC discussed issues relating to the Second Lebanon War in 2006, four of the council's independent experts reported the findings of their visit to Lebanon and Israel. State after state from the OIC took the floor to denounce the experts for daring to look beyond Israeli violations to discuss Hizbullah's as well.

This sent a very clear message that experts filing reports for the UNHRC involving Israel should never look at the conduct of any other party. Justice Richard Goldstone understood this very well, as was reflected in the report he gave the UNHRC. In an interview given to Al Jazeera in 2009, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary-general of the OIC, explained how his organization not only initiated, but drove the Goldstone process from start to finish.

THE PANEL of experts compiling the report on events surrounding the flotilla has clearly understood its mandate well. Once again, a report has singularly blamed an event almost solely on Israel while refusing to assign responsibility or even suitably investigate any other actor. What makes the report so absurd is the recent release of many first-hand accounts by people on the Mavi Marmara.

These accounts, written by some hostile to Israel in the first place, depict very different scenes to those described in the report.

In his recently released book, Turkish journalist Sefik Dinç, while sympathetic to the militant IHH, writes that the crisis was "calculated" by those on board, and reportedly describes how the IDF soldiers did not open fire until after other soldiers were taken hostage. Dinç describes in his book, with the aid of photographs, how preparations for confronting the Israelis on the Mavi Marmara were "not going to be that passive."

Our internal investigations indicate that not only did the soldiers only open fire when their lives were threatened, but that the first shots were fired by those on the boat; there are reports that one soldier suffered a knee injury from a non-IDF weapon as soon as he came on board.

This biased, libelous report indicates that the OIC has once again achieved its aim of condemning Israel through its proxies in the UNHRC. One again, it has proven UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and former high commissioner for human rights Mary Robinson's criticisms that the council acts according to political considerations as opposed to human rights. In fact, the report stands as an affront to the secretary-general's own panel of inquiry, with which Israel is fully cooperating.

General Assembly President Joseph Deisss warned recently against the marginalization of the UN itself by stating the need for urgent reforms, like reviewing the UNHRC. At stake is the plight of millions of victims of human-rights violations around the world.

It is high time for democracies to reassess their participation in a council that places political calculations over the protection of human rights while providing cover to some of the world's most brutal regimes.

We must give a voice to the oppressed, justice to the abused and equity for all of humanity. None of this will be achieved by always attacking and condemning Israel while allowing totalitarian nations to hijack the international human-rights agenda.

The writer is the deputy foreign minister.

vrijdag 24 september 2010

Israeli's en Palestijnen willen vrede, maar zijn onderhandelingen moe

A Palestinian takes aim at Israeli police with a slingshot after the funeral procession for Samir Serhan, shot dead by a Jewish settlement security guard, on Sept. 22, 2010. (Warrick Page/Getty Images)
 
 
Een paar weken geleden kwam de Times met een idioot en suggestief artikel over dat Israeli's liever in de zon liggen en geld uitgeven dan dat ze zich bezig houden met het conflict met de Palestijnen. In de Globalpost wijst Matt Beynon Rees erop dat je precies zo'n verhaal kunt maken over de Palestijnen in Ramallah, waar de ene club na de andere de grond uit schiet, en zelfs in Gaza zijn er tegenwoordig luxe winkelcentra, clubs en hotels waar mensen het ervan nemen. Hij wijst er verder op dat het alleszins begrijpelijk is dat mensen aan beide kanten niet met leven willen wachten totdat er vrede is.
 
Of course, it's always dangerous for a journalist to suggest that someone "doesn't care." In the Middle East, that person is most likely to be engaged in something else when he chats with the reporter, but just as easily could be sprung back into caring deeply as soon as violence erupts.
 
Mensen zetten zich vaak op hun eigen manier in voor vrede en verzoening, of reageren op ad hoc situaties. Zo kunnen vele duizenden mensen de straat op gaan voor een concrete zaak, een oproep ondersteunen of geld geven of zelfs met gevaar voor eigen leven iemand helpen. Israeli's reageren zeer alert op mogelijk gevaar en wachten niet af zoals je hier weleens ziet.
 
Palestinians and Israelis want peace. The Time article picked up rather on the fact that both peoples are sick of the energy it takes to follow these frequently pointless talks. To some, that looks like a lack of desire for peace. I'd call it a reflection of the fact that everyone knows what sort of peace deal could be achieved, if only the politicians would put away their fears of being condemned by their own extremists.
 
Dat klinkt iets te simpel. Een meerderheid van de Israeli's wil een einde aan de bezetting, maar wel een zekere controle houden over de toekomstige Palestijnse staat, en de grote nederzettingenblokken houden. Over de vraag of Jeruzalem een gedeelde hoofdstad kan worden is men op zijn best verdeeld. Een meerderheid van de Palestijnen is tegen een tweestatenoplossing in de zin van twee staten voor twee volken, is tegen een gedeeld Jeruzalem en vindt dat miljoenen nakomelingen van de vluchtelingen moeten kunnen terugkeren naar Israel. Zie bijvoorbeeld deze recente enquete.
 
RP
--------------
 
Why Israel cares about peace
 
Analysis: Many Israelis and Palestinians live as if peace has already arrived.

Editor's note: In an address to the United Nations General Assembly today, U.S. President Barack Obama urged support for the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations currently underway.

JERUSALEM — Ariel Sharon, who went into a coma almost five years ago, is soon to be moved from his hospital bed to his ranch on the edge of the Negev Desert. If he came out of his coma (his doctors say he never will), the former Israeli prime minister could be forgiven for thinking peace had been made in the years that he lay in Sheba Medical Center near Tel Aviv.

A recent Time magazine cover bore a daisy chain Star of David and the headline: "Why Israel doesn't care about peace." The story inside detailed how Israelis were too busy drinking at bars, eating at restaurants and sunning themselves on the beach to care about the peace talks which are just under way.

The author could've just as easily zipped along to the Palestinian town of Ramallah, which abuts Jerusalem to the north, and pulled together a similar story. The city's nightlife has exploded in the last year or so with new clubs and bars opening each month. It isn't just United Nations workers who frequent the fusion restaurant called Orjuwan or the painfully loud dance floor at SnowBar, just down the road from the refugee camps and across the street from Yasser Arafat's tomb. These are young, wealthy Palestinians who are living as though Ibiza came to the West Bank.

What Sharon would soon figure out — because he was nothing if not shrewd — is that some Israelis and Palestinians are tired of waiting for peace to be negotiated and have decided to live as if there already were peace.

I've been in Jerusalem since 1996. All the recent headlines about "freezing settlement building" or "security control over holy sites" are repetitious to the point of utter inanity. A revived Sharon would probably think he'd actually gone back in time to Benjamin Netanyahu's first term as prime minister in the late-1990s, when negotiations crawled along at a desperately dull pace. What I've observed lately is that Israelis and Palestinians are as tired of living through peace negotiations as I am of writing about them.

Of course, it's always dangerous for a journalist to suggest that someone "doesn't care." In the Middle East, that person is most likely to be engaged in something else when he chats with the reporter, but just as easily could be sprung back into caring deeply as soon as violence erupts. The Palestinians rioting in East Jerusalem Wednesday, for example, after violence on the Temple Mount, appeared to care about something.

Either that or they just wanted to throw some stones and work up a sweat, which is another cause for rioting that journalists often overlook — teenage male testosterone.

Palestinians and Israelis want peace. The Time article picked up rather on the fact that both peoples are sick of the energy it takes to follow these frequently pointless talks. To some, that looks like a lack of desire for peace. I'd call it a reflection of the fact that everyone knows what sort of peace deal could be achieved, if only the politicians would put away their fears of being condemned by their own extremists.

The focus of most journalists is, in fact, those very extremists. They cause the most damage and make the loudest noise. They're not the majority. That's what makes them powerful, too.

When most of the people around them are keen to live as if there were peace — as if those extremists didn't exist — then the power to change events lies with the extremists. They know there's not peace; they don't have to pretend. That's why a relatively small number of settlement activists are able to drag the Israeli government toward a renewed expansion of its colonies in the West Bank, which may cripple the new negotiations almost before they've begun.

In the same way, it's Hamas in the Gaza Strip, not the U.S.-backed Fatah in Ramallah clubland, which dictates how far Palestinian leaders are able to go in their talks with Israel.

Coming out of his coma, Sharon would recognize that situation. In the Middle East, some things don't change.

 

woensdag 22 september 2010

Toekomstig Palestina bij een tweestatenoplossing kan ramp voor Israel zijn

 
Barry Rubin is niet zo optimistisch als Bradley Burston over de kansen voor de vredesonderhandelingen tussen Netanjahoe en Abbas, maar zijn zorgen klinken legitiem. Voor veel Israeli's is niet het vasthouden van het land op de Westelijke Jordaanoever als deel van 'historisch Israel' van belang, maar het risico dat als ze dit gebied opgeven, er een vijandige staat wordt gevestigd die meer bedreigend is voor Israel dan de huidige situatie. De huidige situatie is op den duur onhoudbaar, maar zijn er genoeg garanties te geven dat de tweestatenoplossing wel tot een duurzame vrede leidt?
 
Wouter
_______________


Monday, September 20, 2010

A Future History of Palestine: You Want a Two-State Solution? Then Do It Right.

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/09/future-history-of-palestine-you-want.html
By Barry Rubin

 
The following article isn't intended to reject a two-state solution but to point out issues that would inevitably arise if one ever came about. Recently, a once-major American magazine ran a cover story saying Israelis aren't desperately eager for "peace" without ever mentioning the real reasons why that's so:

It's simple: Rather reasonably, Israelis want to know whether they would be better or worse off after making a deal to get a promise of peace in exchange for accepting a fully independent Palestinian state.

Making a strategy requires figuring out where things can go wrong and working to avoid or reduce the consequences. Pretending problems won't happen is the best way to engender catastrophes. So let's look at what would happen:

A gala celebration marks Palestine's day of independence. Some world leaders come bearing promises of financial aid. Arab leaders attending offer little money and, except for Egypt's president and Jordan's king, avoid contact with Israel's delegation.

These celebrations are marred by the absence of leaders from countries--including Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, and Yemen. refusing to recognize the new state. 

Hamas, ruling the Gaza Strip, along with Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian groups, also reject the "traitorous entity." Gaza's rulers mark the occasion by firing rockets into Israel. Palestine's president boasts hollowly that his country includes all of the Gaza Strip but controls nothing there.

Hardly any of the Western media cover statements by some leaders of Palestine's ruling Fatah group that the new country's independence is not the conflict's end but the first step toward total victory and conquest of Israel.

Nor do many note statements of Islamist and Palestinian nationalist Arab groups among Israel's citizens that they now seek to dismantle the Zionist nature of the Israeli state, a goal several European newspapers endorse.

Nor is it widely highlighted in the Western media that the new country officially proclaims itself an Arab and Muslim state while ridiculing the idea of accepting Israel as a Jewish state.

Within a few weeks, infiltrators--some from Hamas, some from Fatah--cross the Palestine-Israel border to attack Israeli motorists and farming villages, set fires, and engage in sabotage. Palestine's government loudly condemns the attacks and claims it is trying to stop them. But the attacks continue even though a few Hamas supporters are rounded up, beaten up, and briefly imprisoned.

Soon, the official Museum of Palestinian History opens with exhibits claiming all of Israel as rightfully part of Palestine. Visiting schoolchildren are told that Tel Aviv, Haifa, Beersheva, and the rest of Israel belong to them and will some day be part of Palestine. Big displays show alleged Israeli atrocities and extol heroes who'd blown themselves up killing many Israeli civilians.

Yet these things, along with anti-Israel incitement in the Palestinian media, mosques, and textbooks, attract little foreign attention. The conflict is over, isn't it? And to publicize such facts, journalists tell each other, would only "play into the hands of Israeli hardliners" and "undermine peace."

Israel, of course, protests the incitement and armed attacks to the UN and Western governments, but those diplomatic efforts bring no response. Israel steps up defenses and builds a border fence at great expense, which helps somewhat. Yet every time Israeli patrols fire on infiltrators trying to get across, Palestine protests--backed by Muslim-majority states—that this is unprovoked Israeli aggression.

In the Middle East, the peace agreement brings little change. True, in some countries hatred toward Israel diminishes a bit. But Syria is still uninterested in peace. Moreover, growing fear of a nuclear Iran, Syria, and revolutionary Islamist groups intimidates other Arab states from making peace with Israel. After all, they say, now that there's a state of Palestine they don't need to do so.

Islamist groups rally against the "treasonous" Palestinian regime and "sell-out" of Palestine to recruit new members. America is no more popular for having fathered a Palestinian state since that birth required concessions and didn't bring all the land under Muslim rule. Violent attacks against U.S., European, and occasionally Palestinian institutions take place in a half-dozen countries.

From this point, we can envision several likely scenarios:

--Growing border tension and cross-border attacks lead to Israeli incursions to fight terrorists against whom the Palestinian government doesn't act effectively. This sets off a crisis in which Israel is branded as the aggressor that is threatening peace and some call for sanctions against it.

--A coup takes place turning Palestine into a military-run regime which might be either more militant, wanting to fight Israel, or more cautious, seeking to crush Hamas.

--As a result of tensions with Israel, internal conflicts, a radical regime, or coup, the Palestinian government obtains military equipment, including advanced anti-aircraft missiles, violating the peace agreement. What's the world going to do to enforce that treaty? Probably very little.

--As a result of the list of scenarios given in the previous paragraph, the Palestinian government calls in foreign troops, possibly Syrian or Iranian. What's the world going to do about that? How would the world respond to Israel taking military action against such threats and treaty violations?

--A Hamas coup, far more likely to happen than the Palestinian government conquering the Gaza Strip, produces a pro-Tehran Hamas regime which, perhaps partnered with militant Fatah leaders, tears up the peace agreement and announces an alliance with Iran, making Israel and Western strategic interests worse off than ever.

Of course, we can also assume everything goes well and everyone lives happily ever after, that Palestinians become interested only in raising their living standards and keeping things quiet. That might happen.

But while the above scenarios are speculative they are better rooted in experience and reality than is the "best-case" alternative. At any rate, betting the lives of millions of people, Israel's future, and Western strategic interests must be based on something better than wishful thinking and refusing to acknowledge the threats involved.

Tell me, if you can, how the above predictions are ridiculously unlikely or impossible. The only likely response is: Shut up! You are endangering the possibility of peace!

Have you ever seen serious discussion of any of these points from Western experts, media, or governments?

Is there any sign of steps being taken to avoid such outcomes in the Western approach to the issue?

O course, this is all hypothetical. In practice, the Palestinian Authority isn't going to make peace for many years to come.

While many would read this article as reason to oppose any two-state solution altogether. I, like most Israelis, favor a two-state solution if done properly. Yet if no one takes these dangers seriously, why should Israel make concessions, take risks, and rush into such a situation where it would be very likely worse off than it is now?

All we are saying is to give peace a chance. But only if it is likely to be a peace that is lasting and better than the status quo for all concerned.
 
=========
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports,
 
 

Bradley Burston over de neergang van de kolonistenbeweging in Israel

 
Verslaggevers in Israel en andere zogenaamde deskundigen wijzen graag op de macht van de kolonisten in Israel en stellen Netanjahoe als een rechtse havik voor. Ook het Israelische publiek zou geen echte concessies willen doen en vasthouden aan 'Judea en Samaria'. In werkelijkheid is een meerderheid van het Israelische publiek voor terugtrekking uit het merendeel van de Westoever en een einde aan de bezetting. Men is huiverig voor Palestijnse soevereiniteit vanwege het gevaar dat Hamas de macht zal overnemen en de Westoever net als Gaza en Zuid-Libanon vol zal worden gezet met raketten. Dat, en niet Gods belofte aan Abraham of vermeende Joodse superioriteit, heeft Netanjahoe relatief veel zetels gegeven en een rechtsere regering mogelijk gemaakt. Maar ook Netanjahoe is pragmatischer dan men hier wil zien. Terwijl men zijn best doet om uitspraken van Hamas (en andere Palestijnse leiders) zo gematigd mogelijk uit te leggen, ziet men de werkelijke ideologische verandering van Netanjahoe geheel over het hoofd.
 

Settler leaders have also suggested that the movement's will to resist such a change is much diminished since the Gaza disengagement. Senior Yesha official Shaul Goldstein remarked at the outset of the settlement freeze that most settlers were too "moderate" to take off from jobs to attend protests, even though he said the freeze "means that life might stop."

Most daunting to the settlers and their supporters is the fear that Benjamin Netanyahu may opt to follow in the paths of hawkish Likud founders Sharon and Menachem Begin, and launch a landmark withdrawal. It was Begin, settlers note, who pledged as he took power as prime minister, that he would someday retire to a settlement in then-occupied Sinai - only to return the entire peninsula and demolish the settlements there under the 1979 Camp David peace treaty.

Israel Harel, a founder and former leader of the Yesha Council and one of the most prominent voices of the movement, warned last week of the "huge ideological about-face" he said that Netanyahu had undergone.
 
 
RP
--------------
 
Published 15:31 20.09.10 Latest update 15:31 20.09.10

    Special Place in Hell / Breaking Israel to fix it – rightists rethink holding the West Bank

     
    So profound is the fear that Netanyahu may commit to a sea change on the West Bank, and succeed in mobilizing the support of a consensus of Israeli and U.S. Jews, it has now spread to some of the most vocal and - until now - most unflagging of the prime minister's past admirers.
     
     
    Every revolution tends to believe that it is forever. Nowhere is this more evident than Israel, for six decades cradle and crucible to concurrent revolutions.

    But the fate of every revolutionary movement is to age, to fall prey to fissures and compound fractures, and to be astounded to find that one day, it has become history.

    Now it is the turn of the settlers. Though the trappings of their past success remain, their revolution is broken. The settlement movement – along with the dovish revolution whose banner was land for peace – was shattered in the chaos of the Al-Aqsa Intifada.

    In just six days in 2005, the single most indispensible figure in rooting settlements into the territories, Ariel Sharon, quashed a quarter century of Israeli settlement in the Gaza Strip – at the approval of two-thirds of the Israeli electorate.

    The settlement revolution has never truly recovered. Even as it insists that West Bank settlements can never be undone, the movement is both haunted and crippled by its own private Naqba, the loss of the dream of a Greater Israel in the Likud government's disengagement.

    Of late, figures of significance on the right of both the Israeli and American Jewish communities have begun to rethink the future of the settlers' core redoubt: the West Bank.

    As Israeli-Palestinian negotiations resumed this month, influential Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer astounded many colleagues on the right by observing that "No serious player believes it can hang on forever to the West Bank.

    "This has created a unique phenomenon in Israel - a broad-based national consensus for giving nearly all the West Bank in return for peace," Krauthammer continued. "The moment is doubly unique because the only man who can deliver such a deal is Likud Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu - and he is prepared to do it."

    The comments coincided with a number of indications of a beginning of change on the right and within the settlement movement itself.

    Among the more intriguing is a group of young Israelis – some of whom grew up in West Bank settlements - who have moved back into Israel to resettle the abandoned kibbutz of Retamim in the central Negev.

    The group includes the son of Pinchas Wallerstein, a former longtime leader of the Yesha Council, the effective government of the settlement movement.

    At the same time, some residents of settlements outside the blocs which U.S. officials foresee could be appended to Israel in the context of a withdrawal, have been putting out feelers to Israeli government agencies about possible compensation for voluntarily moving back to Israel in the future.

    Another shift in thinking is increasing sentiment for the possibility of a unilateral West Bank withdrawal outside the context of negotiations with the Palestinians. For many Israelis, this dovetails with fast-evaporating hopes for an eventual peace agreement with a deeply divided Palestinian body politic.

    Israeli analyst Guy Bechor, who has often argued for hardline stances vis a vis the Palestinians,  wrote last week that Israel should now deliver an ultimatum to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas: "This is your and your administration's last chance. If we fail to secure a quick agreement, where Israel's demands are recognized, we shall unilaterally evacuate most of Judea and Samaria, annex the settlement blocs and Jerusalem's Old City, and abandon you and your regime to Hamas' and Jordan's mercy.

    Bechor has also proposed that Israel renounce its annexation of most of Arab East Jerusalem and cede control over it. "An immense burden – on the political, defense, economic, and public relations fronts – will be lifted from our shoulders when the status of Palestinians in east Jerusalem will be the same as that of Palestinians across the West Bank," he wrote earlier this year.

    "This will happen eventually in any case, according to the world, so why not do it now?"

    Most daunting to the settlers and their supporters is the fear that Benjamin Netanyahu may opt to follow in the paths of hawkish Likud founders Sharon and Menachem Begin, and launch a landmark withdrawal. It was Begin, settlers note, who pledged as he took power as prime minister, that he would someday retire to a settlement in then-occupied Sinai - only to return the entire peninsula and demolish the settlements there under the 1979 Camp David peace treaty.

    Israel Harel, a founder and former leader of the Yesha Council and one of the most prominent voices of the movement, warned last week of the "huge ideological about-face" he said that Netanyahu had undergone.

    Noting that Netanyahu had begun speaking of "two states for two peoples" and calling Judea and Samaria "the West bank," Harel wrote in Haaretz that many of the prime minister's critics "cannot grasp the fact that Netanyahu, via his statements, has embarked on a road from which there is no turning back."

    The ultimate fear is that if Netanyahu takes a position in line with Washington's vision of concessions, the Likud and the cabinet - for all its drumbeat of eternal commitment to the settlers - will go along.

    Settler leaders have also suggested that the movement's will to resist such a change is much diminished since the Gaza disengagement. Senior Yesha official Shaul Goldstein remarked at the outset of the settlement freeze that most settlers were too "moderate" to take off from jobs to attend protests, even though he said the freeze "means that life might stop."

    Since the Gaza pullout, the Yesha Council has also lost much of its influence with young firebrand activists, many of whom now dismiss the council as mashtapim [collaborators] and bourgeois.

    There are also fears that radical actions by young "hilltop youth," the movement's volatile shock troops, could further alienate the Israeli mainstream, adding consensus support to a West Bank withdrawal.

    The lack of movement toward a formalized peace accord is also spurring general Israeli interest in a pullout, based on the sense that if no action is taken soon to separate Israel from the more than 2.5 million Palestinians of the West Bank, the Jewish state will effectively become an Arab country.

    Through it all, Netanyahu remains the linchpin to any move to alter the status of the West Bank. If Netanyahu were to play the Iran card, citing U.S. pressure for concessions in return for security assurances, even rabbis staunchly opposed to withdrawal would have to rethink their stances, Harel maintains.

    "Any rabbi would agree that when it comes to saving the nation from the Iranian bomb, national pikuah nefesh (saving a life) takes precedence over Judea and Samaria."

    On Monday, speculation grew that Netanyahu was mulling a major step, when Israel Channel Two television reported that he backed legislation for a referendum on a future West Bank agreement. Apart from a possible signal of the prime minister's intentions, a referendum could blunt and overcome rightist opposition to a withdrawal.

    So profound is the fear that Netanyahu may commit to a sea change on the West Bank, and succeed in mobilizing the support of a consensus of Israeli and U.S. Jews, it has now spread to some of the most vocal and - until now - most unflagging of the prime minister's past admirers.

    "Netanyahu's preference for appeasement is both ironic and destructive." The Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick writes. While Krauthammer's "arrogant and false portrayal of reality is debilitating," she continues, "it is Netanyahu who is charged with leading and defending Israel."

    "And Netanyahu is the man who is now leading us on a path to degradation and defeat."

     

    Palestijnse opiniepeiling No. 41 over PA, Hamas en vredesonderhandelingen met Israel

     
    Voor al diegenen die menen dat Hamas zo populair is onder de Palestijnen en profiteert van de Westerse boycot en Israelische represailles, moeten de uitslagen van deze enquete als een volslagen verrassing komen. In alle vragen die over Hamas en Fatah gaan blijkt dat zij onpopulair is en weinig kiezers zal trekken wanneer er nieuwe verkiezingen worden gehouden:
     
    If presidential elections are held in the present time, to whom from among the following do you give your vote?

    5.7 An independent candidate
    3.2 A candidate from the left
    10.4 A candidate from Hamas
    32.3 A candidate from Fateh
    5.0 A national independent candidate
    3.5 An Islamic independent candidate
    20.8 I will not participate in the elections
    19.2 I have not decided yet

    If new PLC elections are conducted, whom do you vote for?

    6.0 An independent ticket
    3.2 A ticket from the left
    10.7 A ticket from Hamas
    33.2 A ticket from Fateh
    4.6 A national independent ticket
    3.6 An Islamic independent ticket
    20.9 I will not participate in the elections
    17.9 I have not decided yet

    If new legislative elections were to be held today, which of the following
    would win?

    3.1 Independent Islamists bloc
    7.9 Independent Nationalist bloc
    47.4 Fateh bloc
    15.9 Hamas bloc
    2.1 A bloc from leftist organizations
    23.6 No opinion/I do not know

    If municipality and local council elections were to be held, who do you vote for?

    8.6 A block that represents the family or clan
    4.8 An independent ticket
    2.6 A ticket from the left
    11.6 A ticket from Hamas
    29.9 A ticket from Fateh
    4.6 A national independent ticket
    2.6 An Islamic independent ticket
    17.3 I will not participate in the elections
    17.9 I have not decided yet

    As you know, there is a government in the West Bank led by Salam Fayyad and another government in the Gaza Strip led by Ismail Haniyeh. In your opinion which government is more capable of managing the internal Palestinian affairs?

    61.3 The government of Salam Fayyad
    22.0 The Government of Ismail Haniyeh
    16.7 No opinion/I do not know

    How do you assess the performance of the government of Salam Fayyad?

    68.3 Good
    23.0 Bad
    8.7 No opinion/I do not know

    How do you assess the performance of the government of Ismail Haniyeh?
    35.1 Good
    43.9 Bad
    20.9 No opinion/I do not know

    Dat is goed nieuws, want het betekent dat aan de macht van Hamas op democratische wijze een einde gemaakt kan worden. Het betekent echter ook dat Hamas helemaal niet zoveel steun heeft onder de bevolking en het daarom niet arrogant of wat dan ook is dat het Westen geen zaken doet met Hamas. Hamas heeft in de Gazastrook ondemocratisch de macht gegrepen in een bloedige coup drie jaar geleden, en sindsdien de vrijheden van de bevolking stelselmatig ingeperkt. Het is ook een fabel dat Fayyad en Abbas slechts door het Westen in het zadel worden gehouden en eigenlijk maar weinig steun hebben onder de bevolking. Ondanks de corruptie en andere problemen wordt de regering van Fayyad redelijk positief beoordeeld.
     
    Ook uit deze enquete blijkt overigens weer dat de Palestijnen heel Jeruzalem willen hebben, ook West Jeruzalem:
     
    Do you support or reject making Jerusalem a capital for two states: Palestine and Israel?

    19.4 I support
    78.0 I reject
    2.6 No opinion/I do not know
     
    Dit bleek onlangs ook uit een andere enquete en uit uitspraken van Abbas, maar het wil niet doordringen tot het Westen.
     
    RP
    -----------------------------
     
    Voor de volledige uitslag van de peiling:

    Results of Palestinian Public Opinion Poll No. 41
    17-19 September 2010
    http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=22591&CategoryId=17
     
     
    Een meerderheid van de Palestijnen steunt de vredesonderhandelingen, maar minder dan een kwart verwacht dat ze succes hebben. Daarmee zijn de Palestijnen misschien nog optimistischer dan de rest van de wereld, in elk geval optimistischer dan de meeste media en commentatoren:

    Do you support or reject the PA's engagement in direct talks with the Israeli Government?

    56.7 I support
    38.4 I reject
    4.8 No opinion/I do not know


    Do you expect failure or success of the direct talks between the PA and the Israeli Government?

    23.1 I expect success
    67.9 I expect failure
    9.0 No opinion/I do not know


    maandag 20 september 2010

    Mubarak: Arabische en islamitische staten prima, maar géén Joodse staat

     
    President Hosni Mubarak van Egypte zei afgelopen zaterdag op de Israelische TV:

    "I say to Israeli citizens, including Jews, Muslims and others, that there is no such thing as a state in which all the citizens are Jews," Mubarak said. "In Egypt, we have Muslims, Christians and Jews and there is no problem. When they wanted to establish a Muslim state in Kosovo, the world came out against it because it did not want a Muslim state in central Europe."

    In Egypte wonen inderdaad christenen, maar nauwelijks Joden. Die zijn allemaal verdreven in de jaren '50 en '60, met achterlating van hun bezittingen en land. Niet alleen hebben zij nooit compensatie gekregen, Egypte weigert haar spijt te betuigen voor dit grote onrecht. Zie voor een persoonlijk verslag van een Egyptische Jood: My Personal Exodus from Egypt

    In de Egyptische grondwet staat:

    Art. 1:  The Arab Republic of Egypt is a Socialist Democratic State based on the alliance of the working forces of the people. The Egyptian people are part of the Arab Nation and work for the realization of its comprehensive unity.

    Art.2 : Islam is the Religion of the State. Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).

    Andere Arabische staten en ook de Palestijnen hebben vergelijkbare dingen in hun grondwet staan. In Israel is het Jodendom niet de staatsreligie, noch stelt Israel dat al haar inwoners allemaal deel zijn van de Joodse natie. Israel vraagt alleen om erkenning van het feit dat zij de natie-staat is van het Joodse volk. Zij wil dat de Arabieren eindelijk eens erkennen dat er zoiets is als een Joods volk (iets dat ook Mubarak in bovenstaande verklaring weer ontkent) en dat dit volk nationale rechten heeft, en wel daar waar haar wortels liggen en waar zij altijd mee verbonden is gebleven: het land van Israel. Zolang dat niet wordt erkend is vrede onmogelijk.
     
    RP
    ---------------------
     
     

    donderdag 16 september 2010

    Fosforbommen alleen in publiciteit als het Israel betreft.

    Fosfor mag gebruikt worden bij militaire acties, als het dient om een rookgordijn op te trekken of om het terrein te verlichten.

    Dit mag alleen in open terrijn en niet in bevolkte gebieden.

    Israel heeft de officiele toepassing in Gaza gebruikt, maar de hele wereld viel over Israel heen.

    Een officieel onafhankelijk onderzoek heeft nog steeds niet plaats gevonden, maar Israel wordt op dit punt als oorlogsmisdadiger gebrandmerkt.

     

    Hamas bedrijft al jaren oorlogsmisdaden door willekeurig raketten en mortieren op Israel af te schieten en probeert juist onschuldige burgers zo veel mogelijk te treffen.

    Dit is inderdaad erkend als oorlogsmisdaad, maar heeft tot nu toe nauwelijks aandacht gekregen of consequenties gehad.

     

    Nu heeft Hamas daar een nieuwe oorlogsmisdaad aan toegevoegd door de projectielen van fosfor te voorzien met als doel zoveel mogelijk schade aan te richten en onschuldige burgers te treffen.

    Verwacht mag worden dat dit op grote schaal bekend zal worden en VN, mensenrechtenorganisaties en NGO`s dit massaal zullen veroordelen en om een bijeenkomst van de VN zullen vragen om deze daad af te keuren.

     

    Tot nu toe heb ik een paar regels op de binnenpagina van de krant aangetroffen.

    Wederom wordt terrorisme niet aangepakt, zelfs niet openlijk veroordeeld door de VN en andere organisaties, landen of mensenrechtenorganisaties.

    Dit is des te meer zorgelijk, omdat Israel dit niet kan tolereren en zal moeten reageren en die reactie zal ongetwijfeld weer wel (negatieve) aandacht krijgen.

    MS

     

     

    15/9/10

    Description: Israel National News

     

    Expert: Complaint Against Hamas War Crimes is Futile

     
    by Hillel Fendel

     

    Israel is still reeling from the firing of two phosphorous bombs at its territory from Gaza on Tuesday – a war crime under international law.

    The IDF confirmed on Wednesday that the onslaught of ten mortar shells and two Kassam rockets fired at Israel the day before from Gaza included two phosphorous bombs. Police sources said three of the shells were phosphorous. Following the barrage, the Israel Air Force struck back, leading to the death of an Arab arms smugger in one of the many tunnels leading from Egypt to Gaza.

     

    Firing phosphorous bombs at personnel, either civilian or military, is a war crime under international law. However, says Dr. Robbie Sabel, an international law expert at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, “there is really very little we can do about it. Turning to the UN is done only in the case of countries and states, which Hamas in Gaza is not. The only thing that can be done is to point out to the world that Hamas continues to violate military law - and take military action against them.”

    “It’s quite clear that Hamas has long been violating international law,” Sabel added, “and it’s quite generally well-known around the world. Even the Goldstone report stated that Hamas aims at civilians – and then went on to elaborate much more on Israel… But these phosphorous bombs are just the latest example of Hamas violations.”

    Asked about Arab accusations that Israel had used phosphorous bombs in the past, Dr. Sabel said, “I know that Israel does not use phosphorous bombs against personnel or in any illegal manner. Phosphorous bombs are permitted for use as smoke screens or for illumination, and Israel uses them only for those purposes.”

    The mortar shells and Kassam rockets fired at Israel on Tuesday landed in open areas in the Eshkol and Shaar HaNegev regions, causing no casualties or property damage.

     

    woensdag 15 september 2010

    Hamas video over 'bevrijding van Tel Aviv'

     
    Onlangs nog schreef Anja Meulenbelt een lang artikel over de vredelievendheid van Hamas, dat Israel al lang vrede zou hebben aangeboden maar Israel houdt liever het sprookje in stand dat Hamas haar wil vernietigen. Deze film zal dus wel door de Mossad zijn gemaakt, want het vredelievende Hamas zou hier toch niet van durven dromen?
     
    RP
    ----------------
     
    Hamas presents: 'Liberation of TA'
    (Video) Group operatives from Gaza, West Bank create video depicting 'liberation' of Israeli cities, Channel 2's news desk

    Ali Waked Published: 09.13.10, 15:52

    VIDEO - A new Hamas video clip has the Arab internet all a frenzy:

    It depicts the "battle to free Palestine" and includes fire on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and changes to Channel 2's news anchors.

    The video, which is particularly popular in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, was created by two Hamas operatives from Gaza and the West Bank.

    It shows a graphic simulation of the burning down of the High Court of Justice and the Bank of Israel buildings in Jerusalem, and cars with Palestinian flags driving across Ayalon Highway.

    The beginning of the video shows a Palestinian refugee saying "Inshallah, the Jihad will take back the homeland."

    The next image is of Palestinian students telling their teacher they want to become part of the resistance; followed by an image of an armed Palestinian outlining the liberation operation.

    After Israel is successfully attacked and "liberated," Palestinians are shown walking along the Tel Aviv promenade and on its streets.

    At the pinnacle moment of the video, the opening credits to Channel 2's nightly news edition appear, but anchorwoman Yonit Levy's place is taken by a Palestinian anchorman, depicted getting ready for the news broadcast declaring the "liberation of Tel Aviv and Palestine."

    According to Muhammad al-Amriti, one of the video's creators, the clip was make in response to "inciting Zionist videos and videos encouraging the bombing of the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

    "We planned to do a cartoon, but we then decided to shoot an actual film. We hope it can be aired on the satellite stations that support the resistance," he said.

    His partner Eieman Hijazi, said the two used their own funds to finance the film, and urged television stations supporting the resistance to fund more films of this kind, saying he and his partner could produce such videos every three months.

     
     

    Enquete onder Palestijnen over vredesonderhandelingen weinig hoopgevend

     
    Vaak wordt beweerd dat een meerderheid van de Palestijnen allang een tweestatenoplossing accepteert en bereid is de gewapende strijd op te geven, als Israel maar bereid zou zijn de Palestijnen een staat te gunnen en te stoppen met de bezetting. De resultaten van deze enquete stemmen niet vrolijk, om het mild uit te drukken. Een paar voorbeelden:

    With regards to rebuilding confidence in the peace process please indicate which of the following options you consider to be 'Essential', 'Desirable', 'Acceptable', 'Tolerable' or 'Unacceptable'.

    Resist occupation through violence to achieve a state
    Essential 36.7 Desirable 18.7 Acceptable 16.8
    Tolerable  14.0 Unacceptable 13.7

    With regards to the final status of Palestine and Israel please indicate which of the following you consider to be Essential, Desirable, Acceptable, Tolerable or Unacceptable as part of a peace agreement.

    Historic Palestine - from the Jordan River to the sea as a national homeland for Palestinians
    Essential 78.2 Desirable 12.5 Acceptable 4.3
    Tolerable 3.1 Unacceptable 2.0

    With regards to refugees please indicate which of the following options you consider to be Essential, Desirable, Acceptable, Tolerable or Unacceptable as part of a peace agreement.

    The number of refugees returning to Israel should be limited to family members and numbers agreed between Israel and Palestine
    Essential 3.7 Desirable 7.8 Acceptable 11.9
    Tolerable  16.9 Unacceptable 59.6
     
    Right of return and compensation
    Essential 87.5 Desirable 8.0 Acceptable 1.9
    Tolerable 1.6 Unacceptable 1.1

     
    With regards to Jerusalem please indicate which of the following options you consider to be Essential, Desirable, Acceptable, Tolerable or Unacceptable as part of a peace agreement.

    All of Jerusalem (East and West) should remain in Palestine
    Essential 84.1 Desirable 10.3 Acceptable 2.2
    Tolerable 1.6 Unacceptable 1.7

    Do you believe that Palestinians and Israelis will coexist if Palestinians gain their own independent state?
    Yes 16.7 Maybe 37.7 No 42.3 Don't know 3.2

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

    Results of an Opinion Poll
    Publication Date: 28 August 2010
    Field work: 8-14 August 2010
    Sample Size: 3,001 Palestinians in the West Bank & Gaza
    Margin of error: +/-1.5 %

    Arab World for Research & Development
    Ramallah - Gaza, Palestine
    Tele-fax: 00970-2-2950957/8
    E-mail:
    awrad@awrad.org
    Website: www.awrad.org
    www.awrad.org/pdfs/English%20tables%20part%201%20peace%20August%202010.pdf

    Section One: Progress and responsibility
     
    With regards to responsibility for the lack of progress in the peace process please indicate what issues you consider to be Very Significant, Of Some Significance, Of Little Significance, Of No Significance, or I don't know.

    The United States because of their lack of commitment to a Palestinian state
    Very Significant 69.4 Of Some Significance 14.1
    Of Little Significance  9.2 Of No Significance 5.0
    I don't know 2.3

    The Israeli people because they are not ready to make peace
    Very Significant 69.3 Of Some Significance 16.2
    Of Little Significance 6.7 Of No Significance 5.9
    I don't know 1.9

    The Palestinian people because they are divided by the political differences of Hamas and Fateh
    Very Significant 68.4 Of Some Significance 14.7
    Of Little Significance 5.7 Of No Significance 9.4
    I don't know 1.8

    Arab governments because they are divided on the future of Palestine
    Very Significant 62.8 Of Some Significance 19.2
    Of Little Significance  9.7 Of No Significance 6.2
    I don't know 2.1

    The United Nations because of failure to implement its resolutions
    Very Significant 61.5 Of Some Significance 18.0
    Of Little Significance  10.9 Of No Significance 6.9
    I don't know 2.7

    The Quartet because it is ineffective
    Very Significant 58.6 Of Some Significance 19.1
    Of Little Significance  11.0 Of No Significance  6.6
    I don't know 4.8

    The Israeli public because of their refusal to accept 1967 borders
    Very Significant 57.4 Of Some Significance 21.0
    Of Little Significance 10.9 Of No Significance  6.7
    I don't know 4.0

    The Palestinian government because they are too weak to compromise
    Very Significant 51.4 Of Some Significance 20.9\
    Of Little Significance 12.7 Of No Significance 11.2
    I don't know 3.7

    The Israeli government because they are too weak to compromise
    Very Significant 22.2 Of Some Significance 13.3
    Of Little Significance 16.3 Of No Significance 39.6
    I don't know 8.6

    Section Two: Peace progress and a final status agreement

    With regards to the peace process and reaching a final status agreement, which issues do you consider to be Very Significant, Of Some Significance, Of Little Significance Of No Significance or I don't know?

    Establishing an independent and sovereign Palestinian state

    Very Significant 91.7 Of Some Significance  5.9
    Of Little Significance 1.1 Of No Significance 0.9
    I don't know 0.5

    The status of Jerusalem
    Very Significant 91.0 Of Some Significance  6.5
    Of Little Significance 1.6 Of No Significance 0.5
    I don't know 0.4

    Security for Palestine
    Very Significant 86.2 Of Some Significance 10.4
    Of Little Significance 2.5 Of No Significance 0.4
    I don't know 0.6

    The rights of refugees
    Very Significant 83.2 Of Some Significance 10.7
    Of Little Significance 4.5 Of No Significance 0.9
    I don't know 0.6

    Settlements in the Occupied Territories
    Very Significant 81.3 Of Some Significance 12.8
    Of Little Significance 4.3 Of No Significance 0.9
    I don't know 0.6

    Agreeing to borders for Palestine
    Very Significant 80.2 Of Some Significance 14.0
    Of Little Significance 3.4 Of No Significance 1.7
    I don't know 0.7

    Rights to natural resources (water and air)
    Very Significant 79.7 Of Some Significance 12.6
    Of Little Significance 6.1 Of No Significance 1.0
    I don't know 0.6

    The management of holy sites
    Very Significant 79.2 Of Some Significance 16.0
    Of Little Significance 3.5 Of No Significance 0.5
    I don't know 0.8

    Peace between Israel and the Arab World
    Very Significant 45.7 Of Some Significance 16.6
    Of Little Significance 15.3 Of No Significance 18.7
    I don't know 3.7

    Section Three: Rebuilding confidence in the peace process

    With regards to rebuilding confidence in the peace process please indicate which of the following options you consider to be 'Essential', 'Desirable', 'Acceptable', 'Tolerable' or 'Unacceptable'.

    Israel should remove all check points
    Essential 88.0 Desirable 9.1 Acceptable 1.8
    Tolerable 0.6 Unacceptable 0.4

    Israel should demolish the wall
    Essential 87.7 Desirable 7.7 Acceptable 2.2
    Tolerable 1.2 Unacceptable 1.2

    Israel should freeze settlements in the West Bank
    Essential 86.5 Desirable 9.1 Acceptable 2.1
    Tolerable 0.8 Unacceptable 1.5

    Israel and Egypt should lift the siege of Gaza
    Essential 79.6 Desirable 11.6 Acceptable 4.1
    Tolerable 3.0 Unacceptable 1.7

    Israel should release Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Gilad Shalit
    Essential 71.5 Desirable 14.4 Acceptable 6.5
    Tolerable 3.5 Unacceptable 4.0

    The Obama Administration should place a high priority on Middle East peace
    Essential 65.0 Desirable 21.2 Acceptable 6.3
    Tolerable 2.8 Unacceptable 4.7

    EU and US should work with Egypt to end conflict between Hamas and Fateh
    Essential 47.8 Desirable 28.7 Acceptable 10.7
    Tolerable 5.2 Unacceptable 7.5

    The Arab League should keep pushing for the Arab Peace Initiative
    Essential 45.1 Desirable 25.5 Acceptable 15.0
    Tolerable 7.6 Unacceptable 6.8

    Resist occupation through violence to achieve a state
    Essential 36.7 Desirable 18.7 Acceptable 16.8
    Tolerable 14.0 Unacceptable 13.7

    Achieve a state through negotiations
    Essential 31.4 Desirable 24.3 Acceptable 17.2
    Tolerable 12.5 Unacceptable 14.5

    If there is no agreement, have an internationally supervised truce for 5 years
    Essential 26.9 Desirable 21.2 Acceptable 19.0
    Tolerable 15.3 Unacceptable 17.6

    Resist occupation through non- violent civil disobedience to achieve a state
    Essential 26.9 Desirable 22.2 Acceptable 17.8
    Tolerable 11.1 Unacceptable 21.9

    Armed groups should stop firing rockets from Gaza
    Essential 25.9 Desirable 17.3 Acceptable 15.7
    Tolerable 12.7 Unacceptable 28.4

    Palestinians should continue a unilateral ceasefire to put pressure on Israel
    Essential 19.3 Desirable 16.6 Acceptable 14.5
    Tolerable 12.7 Unacceptable 36.9

    Hamas should recognize Israel if Israel agrees to withdraw from the Occupied Territories
    Essential 16.5 Desirable 13.8 Acceptable 16.2
    Tolerable 17.0 Unacceptable 36.5

    Israel should be allowed to build the wall on the 1967 boarder
    Essential 9.5 Desirable 6.2 Acceptable 7.4
    Tolerable 12.7 Unacceptable 64.2

    Section Four: Final Status (The state)
     
    With regards to the final status of Palestine and Israel please indicate which of the following you consider to be Essential, Desirable, Acceptable, Tolerable or Unacceptable as part of a peace agreement.

    Historic Palestine - from the Jordan River to the sea as a national homeland for Palestinians
    Essential 78.2 Desirable 12.5 Acceptable 4.3
    Tolerable 3.1 Unacceptable 2.0

    Two state solution - two states for two peoples: Israel and Palestine according to UN resolutions
    Essential 17.7 Desirable 15.7 Acceptable 13.6
    Tolerable 15.2 Unacceptable 37.7

    One joint state - a state in which Israelis and Palestinians are equal citizens between the Jordan River and the sea.
    Essential 9.6 Desirable 14.8 Acceptable 13.5
    Tolerable 15.0 Unacceptable 47.1

    One shared state - bi-national federal state in which Israelis and Palestinians share power
    Essential 5.3 Desirable 9.3 Acceptable 12.6
    Tolerable 16.5 Unacceptable 56.2

    Confederation between West Bank and Jordan and between Gaza and Egypt
    Essential 4.7 Desirable 8.2 Acceptable 9.8
    Tolerable 13.5 Unacceptable 63.8

    Which  one  of  the above-listed  scenarios  do  you  believe  is most likely to take place in the coming 10 years?
    10.4% Historic Palestine - From the Jordan River to the sea as a national homeland for the Palestinians
    02.4% One joint state - A state in which Israelis and Palestinians are equal citizens between the Jordan River and the sea
    01.0% One shared state - Bi-national federal state in which Israelis and Palestinians share power
    09.1% Two state solution - Two states for two peoples: Israel and Palestine according to UN resolutions
    03.6% Confederation between West Bank and Jordan and between Gaza and Egypt
    37.9% No change in the status quo will take place
    26.9% The situation will only change for the worse
    08.7% Don't know

    Section five: Refugees

    With regards to refugees please indicate which of the following options you consider to be Essential, Desirable, Acceptable, Tolerable or Unacceptable as part of a peace agreement.

    Right of return and compensation
    Essential 87.5 Desirable 8.0 Acceptable 1.9
    Tolerable 1.6 Unacceptable 1.1

    Refugees who do not wish to return to Israel should be offered compensation for their loss and a choice of resettlement in Palestine (West Bank/Gaza) or another Arab country
    Essential 13.1 Desirable 18.4 Acceptable 22.0
    Tolerable 17.9 Unacceptable 28.6

    Right of return without compensation
    Essential 18.9 Desirable 19.7 Acceptable 14.7
    Tolerable 12.4 Unacceptable 34.2

    Return to Palestine (WB/G) within agreed borders
    Essential 11.4 Desirable 15.5 Acceptable 17.8
    Tolerable 19.3 Unacceptable 36.1

    The number of refugees returning to Israel should be limited to family members and numbers agreed between Israel and Palestine
    Essential 3.7 Desirable 7.8 Acceptable 11.9
    Tolerable 16.9 Unacceptable 59.6

    The UN should close the refugee camps and resettle them with compensation outside of Israel
    Essential 12.6 Desirable 9.9 Acceptable 10.8
    Tolerable 15.6 Unacceptable 51.0

    Under Israeli recognition of the suffering of the Palestinian refugees, compensation without right of return
    Essential 4.8 Desirable 6.5 Acceptable 8.1
    Tolerable 12.6 Unacceptable 68.0

    Which one of the above-listed  scenarios do you  believe  is most likely to take place in the coming 10 years? %
    12.1% Right of return and compensation
    02.7% Right of return without compensation
    03.2% Refugees who do not wish to return to Israel would be offered compensation for their loss and a choice of resettlement in Palestine (West Bank Gaza) or another Arab country
    01.4% The number of refugees returning to Israel would be limited to family members and numbers agreed between Israel and Palestine
    01.9% Return to Palestine (WB/G) within agreed borders
    01.7% Under Israeli recognition of the suffering of the Palestinian refugees, compensation without right of return
    03.2% The UN would close the refugee camps and resettle them with compensation outside of Israel
    45.7% No change in the status of refugees will take place
    21.9% The situation for refugees will only change for the worse
    06.0% Don't know

    Section Six: Security

    With regards to the issue of security please indicate which of the following options you consider to be Essential, Desirable, Acceptable, Tolerable or Unacceptable as part of a peace agreement.

    Palestine should have an army
    Essential 81.7 Desirable 12.2 Acceptable 3.4
    Tolerable 1.5 Unacceptable 1.1

    Palestine should have a strong police force
    Essential 81.0 Desirable 13.4 Acceptable 3.6
    Tolerable 1.3 Unacceptable 0.7

    Israel should be demilitarized, including the standing down of the military
    Essential 41.0 Desirable 21.8 Acceptable 10.6
    Tolerable 10.6 Unacceptable 16.0

    Under the supervision of this force Palestinians will take responsibility for all security on and inside their borders
    Essential 34.2 Desirable 20.9 Acceptable 17.1
    Tolerable 11.7 Unacceptable 16.2

    On signing a peace agreement a force of international, regional and Arab states should replace the IDF in the Occupied Territories for an agreed period
    Essential 25.5 Desirable 20.6 Acceptable 17.5
    Tolerable 13.0 Unacceptable 23.4

    If no agreement is reached within two years this force will replace the IDF in the Occupied Territories without further delay
    Essential 22.9 Desirable 21.6 Acceptable 19.0
    Tolerable 15.1 Unacceptable 21.4

    The international force will ensure security on the Jordanian border
    Essential 22.7 Desirable 18.7 Acceptable 19.9
    Tolerable 16.7 Unacceptable 22.0

    Palestine should be demilitarized, including the disbanding of militias and the standing down of the military.
    Essential 7.8 Desirable 5.5 Acceptable 4.0
    Tolerable 7.6 Unacceptable 75.0

    For an agreed period Israel will have access to the Jordanian border for reasons of security
    Essential 6.2 Desirable 9.6 Acceptable 13.5
    Tolerable 21.2 Unacceptable 49.5

    For an agreed period Israel will have observation posts in the Palestinian state for reasons of security
    Essential 5.4 Desirable 8.7 Acceptable 11.3
    Tolerable 16.7 Unacceptable 57.9

    Section Seven: Settlements
     
    With Regards to the settlements please indicate which of the following options you consider to be Essential, Desirable, Acceptable, Tolerable or Unacceptable as part of a peace agreement.

    All the settlers should leave the Occupied Territories and settlements closed
    Essential 90.8 Desirable 6.3 Acceptable 1.4
    Tolerable 0.8 Unacceptable 0.7

    Dismantle most of the settlements, move settlers to large blocks and exchange land
    Essential 9.6 Desirable 9.0 Acceptable 10.0
    Tolerable 17.9 Unacceptable 53.6

    Settlers can stay in Palestine (WB) if they take up Palestinian citizenship
    Essential 8.1 Desirable 8.6 Acceptable 11.7
    Tolerable 16.7 Unacceptable 54.9

    Which one of the above-listed  scenarios do you  believe  is most likely to take place in the coming 10 years?
    12.7% All the settlers should leave the Occupied Territories and settlements closed
    01.8% Settlers can stay in Palestine (WB) if they take up Palestinian citizenship
    06.1% Dismantle most of the settlements, move settlers to large blocks and exchange land
    38.9% No change in the status of settlements will take place
    31.9% The situation regarding settlements will only change for the worse
    08.6% Don't know

    Section Eight: Borders

    With Regards to the borders please indicate which of the following options you consider to be Essential, Desirable, Acceptable, Tolerable or Unacceptable as part of a peace agreement.

    Israel should withdraw to the 1967 boarder between Israel and Palestine
    Essential 68.4 Desirable 11.7 Acceptable 6.7
    Tolerable 4.5 Unacceptable 8.7

    1967 border adjusted through agreement of equivalent exchange of land
    Essential 15.9 Desirable 17.2 Acceptable 16.3
    Tolerable 16.6 Unacceptable 34.0

    Border established by the security wall
    Essential 7.0 Desirable 6.0 Acceptable 6.7
    Tolerable 12.1 Unacceptable 68.2

    Which one of the above-listed  scenarios do you  believe  is most likely to take place in the coming 10 years?
    15.0%  Israel should withdraw to the 1967 border between Israel and Palestine
    04.7% 1967 border adjusted through agreement of equivalent exchange of land
    03.3% Border established by the security wall
    40.8% No change in the status of borders will take place
    26.5% The situation on borders will only change for the worse
    09.8% Don't know

    Section Nine: Jerusalem

    With regards to Jerusalem please indicate which of the following options you consider to be Essential, Desirable, Acceptable, Tolerable or Unacceptable as part of a peace agreement.

    All of Jerusalem (East and West) should remain in Palestine
    Essential 84.1 Desirable 10.3 Acceptable 2.2
    Tolerable 1.6 Unacceptable 1.7

    Jerusalem should be internationalized as a city of peace under the authority of a Multi-faith Municipal Covenant
    Essential 12.9 Desirable 15.6 Acceptable 17.5
    Tolerable 14.7 Unacceptable 39.3

    Jerusalem should be divided into East and West along the pre-1967 border
    Essential 10.4 Desirable 10.8 Acceptable 11.9
    Tolerable 16.6 Unacceptable 50.3

    Jerusalem should be internationalized as a city of peace under the authority of the UN
    Essential 10.8 Desirable 11.9 Acceptable 11.9
    Tolerable 14.6 Unacceptable 50.9

    Divide the city according to Palestinian and Israeli current neighborhoods
    Essential 6.3 Desirable 9.6 Acceptable 13.1
    Tolerable 16.9  Unacceptable 54.1

    Which one of the above-listed  scenarios do you  believe  is most likely to take place in the coming 10 years?
    08.6% All of Jerusalem (East and West) should remain in Palestine
    01.6% Jerusalem should be internationalized as a city of peace under the authority of the UN
    01.8% Jerusalem should be internationalized as a city of peace under the authority of  a Multi-faith Municipal Covenant
    02.6% Divide the city according to Palestinian and Israeli current neighborhoods
    06.6% Jerusalem should be divided into East and West along the pre-1967 border
    38.1% No change in the status of Jerusalem will take place
    32.9% The situation of Jerusalem will only change for the worse
    07.8% Don't know

    Section Ten: Holy Sites

    With regards to Holy sites please indicate which of the following options you consider to be Essential, Desirable, Acceptable, Tolerable or Unacceptable as part of a peace agreement.

    East Jerusalem, including holy sites, under Palestinian sovereignty
    Essential 82.0 Desirable 10.9 Acceptable 2.6
    Tolerable 2.1 Unacceptable 2.3

    Freedom of religion and free access for everyone to the holy sites. No side will have sovereignty on the holy sites. Israel will be 'guardian' of the Western Wall and the Palestinian State 'guardian' of the Islamic holy sites. The status quo of Christian holy sites will remain.
    Essential 12.1 Desirable 11.9 Acceptable 14.7
    Tolerable 16.5 Unacceptable 44.8

    The Western Wall will be under Israeli sovereignty, Christian and Muslim holy sites, including the Temple Mount, will be under Palestinian sovereignty
    Essential 9.5 Desirable 12.3 Acceptable 13.3
    Tolerable 15.8 Unacceptable 49.0

    Neutral body, e.g. the UN will be the guardian of the holy sites
    Essential 9.3 Desirable 10.5 Acceptable 10.9
    Tolerable 16.9 Unacceptable 52.4

    Section Eleven: Implementation

    With regards to the implementation of a peace agreement please indicate which of the following Options you consider to be Essential, Desirable, Acceptable, Tolerable or Unacceptable as part of a peace agreement.

    All prisoners shall be released
    Essential 90.6 Desirable 6.0 Acceptable 2.1
    Tolerable 0.9 Unacceptable 0.3

    Any peace agreement will be subject to a referendum by the people of Palestine
    Essential 76.4 Desirable 13.4 Acceptable 5.7
    Tolerable 2.5 Unacceptable 2.0

    The peace agreement will be the end of conflict between both parties and enforced by both parties.
    Essential 53.3 Desirable 20.9 Acceptable 11.9\
    Tolerable 8.6 Unacceptable 5.3

    An international body acceptable to both parties will be established to monitor and enforce the full implementation of the agreement
    Essential 48.0 Desirable 22.8 Acceptable 14.7
    Tolerable 9.1 Unacceptable 5.5

    Section Twelve: the Mitchell Mission
     
    How do you evaluate the proximity talks that are lead by the US Envoy George Mitchell?
    Great Progress 1.4 Little Progress 12.3
    No Progress 56.8 Regress 19.7 Don't Know 9.8

    Do you think that the current proximity talks should continue or should Palestinians and Israelis engage in direct negotiations immediately?
    20.8% Proximity talks should continue until Israel declares a freeze on settlements
    31.0% Direct negotiations are the better option
    37.7% I don't care for negotiations at this stage as they make no difference
    10.5% Unsure/Don't know

    If President Abbas decides to engage in direct negotiations with Israel on the final status issues, would you support him?
    10.7% Yes, only if Israel commits to a freeze on settlements
    09.3% Yes, only if the international community gives assurances that the process will lead to a Palestinian State within a timetable
    44.8% Yes, under both of the above-mentioned conditions at the same time
    07.7% Yes, without conditions.
    21.6% No, I will not support these negotiations
    05.8% Unsure/Don't know

    What is the best mechanism to engage in a negotiation process with Israel?
    34.3% Negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis with no intermediaries
    06.3% Negotiations with an American mediation
    31.3% An international conference under the supervision of the UN
    28.2% None of the above

    Which of the following documents do you prefer to be the frame of reference for the negotiations?
    24.% UN resolutions
    12.6% Road Map
    31.9% The Arab Initiative
    05.9% Other
    24.9% Don't Know

    In your opinion, which one of the following is the best means in terms of its capability to end the occupation and to establish a Palestinian state?
    34.6% Negotiations until reaching an agreement between the two parties
    25.9% Violent attacks against Israeli military and settlers
    19.4% A non-violent popular uprising
    06.5% Violent attacks against civilians in Israel through suicide bombers and any other means
    06.2% Attacks against the Israeli military only
    07.3% Other

    In your opinion, do you think that the negotiations will ever lead to a Palestinian state with full sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza Strip?
    Yes 18.2 Maybe 46.8 No 31.8 Don't know 3.2

    Do you believe that Palestinians and Israelis will coexist if Palestinians gain their own independent state?
    Yes 16.7 Maybe 37.7 No 42.3 Don't know 3.2

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

    dinsdag 14 september 2010

    Hamas woordvoerder Ahmad Bahr: "2,5 milioen maagden staan klaar voor martelaren"

     
    Mooie bloemrijke woorden van een Hamas lid van het Palestijnse parlement. Dit is wat Hamas haar 'onderdanen' vertelt, waarmee de kinderen van Gaza opgroeien. Dit is de organisatie die feministe Anja Meulenbelt onlangs weer gepassioneerd verdedigde op haar blog en de linkse website Joop.
     
    RP
    --------------

    September 05, 2010
    Clip No. 2605

    Hamas PLC Speaker Ahmad Bahr: 2.5 Million Virgins Await the Prophets, the Righteous, and the Martyrs in a Single Palace in the Garden of Eden

    Following are excerpts from a speech delivered by Hamas PLC Speaker Ahmad Bahr, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on September 5, 2010.

    Ahmad Bahr: It is said that 'Omar [Ibn Al-Khattab] wished to become a martyr. It is said that one day, 'Omar addressed the people: "In the Garden of Eden, there is a palace – hear me well, brothers – with 500 gates. At every gate, there are 5,000 black-eyed virgins." Brothers, 500 multiplied by 5,000 is 2.5 million.

    [...]

    He said that only prophets may enter this palace. He looked at the tomb of the Prophet Muhammad, and said: "Blessings, oh Messenger of Allah. Only the prophets and the righteous may enter the palace." Then he turned to the tomb of Abu Bakr, and said: "Blessings on your martyrdom for the sake of Allah." Then 'Omar said: "Martyrs [enter the palace] too." Then 'Omar said, as if to himself: "Blessed be your martyrdom, oh 'Omar."

    [...]

    Ibn Hajar explicated a hadith, saying: When a man is having sex with his wife, he should be praying for a son who would wage Jihad for the sake of Allah. If this is the culture of the nation today, who will be able to stop it? Brothers, on the Night of Al-Qadr, bestowed upon us by Allah, I say to you: As long as we continue on this path, nobody on Earth will be able to confront the resistance, or to confront the mujahideen, those who worship Allah and seek martyrdom.

    I say to you, loud and clear: the negotiations, conducted first in the US, then in Sharm Al-Sheikh, and wherever, are aimed at uprooting Islam and the resistance here in Palestine, in Gaza.

    [...]

     

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

    The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, non-profit organization providing translations of the Middle East media and original analysis and research on developments in the region. 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
    P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837
    Phone: [202] 955-9070 Fax: [202] 955-9077 E-Mail:
    memri@memri.org
    Search previous MEMRI publications at our website: www.memri.org
     
     

    maandag 13 september 2010

    Antisemitisme en Holocaust ontkenning door Syrische schrijver op Iraanse TV


    Een "fris en duidelijk geluid" uit Syrië en Iran. Helaas zijn zulke uitspraken niet interessant voor de Westerse media, in tegenstelling tot de enkele keer dat een Israelische rabbijn uit de bocht vliegt en de Palestijnen zijn vijanden noemt en die dood wenst, dan is dat voor de NRC Handelsblad (voor wie de *kuch* nuance zoekt) voorpaginanieuws.
     
    RP
    -------------
     
    MEMRI: Special Dispatch | 3219 | September 8, 2010
    Syria/Iran/Lantos Archives on Anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial
    http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/2593.htm
    Syrian Author Muhammad Nimr Al-Madani on Iranian TV: In Many Countries, the Jews Kill People and Mix Their Blood with the Matza of Zion; The Old Testament Describes How to Build a Crematorium

     
    Following are excerpts from a TV debate on Holocaust denial, which aired on Al-Alam TV (Iran) on August 8, 2010.

    To view this clip on MEMRI TV, visit
    http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2593.htm.


    Syrian author Muhammad Nimr Al-Madani: "I have read everything that has been written about the Holocaust, both by those who deny it and those who claim it occurred. First, those who claim that the Holocaust took place do not have any proof."

    TV host: "Those who claim that it took place?"

    Muhammad Nimr Al-Madani: "Yes."

    TV host: "On what do they base their claims?"

    Muhammad Nimr Al-Madani: "On nothing but a lie. Those who deny [sic] the annihilation have provided weak evidence. To be honest, in the West, they do not dare to speak freely..."

    TV host: "Or to conduct objective research."

    Muhammad Nimr Al-Madani: "Right. They don't enjoy the same freedom as us." [...]

    Syrian researcher and publisher Muhammad Shaykjani: "First of all, there is a Koranic verse that says: 'Thus, the killing of their children was presented favorably to many polytheists.'

    "Those who kill children in order to use their blood to get close to the god of sacrifice have turned to killing the children of the Christians in London and Paris, in Switzerland and Austria. They were expelled from Britain when murdered children were found on one of their holidays. In Syria, they murdered a Christian priest, and the murderers were executed. In many countries, on the Matza of Zion holiday, they would kill people, take the blood of the victims, and mix it with the Matza of Zion. [...]

    "They believe that God died in this annihilation, so that the Jews could live in Palestine, and their god, Yahweh, would live with them." [...]

    Muhammad Nimr Al-Madani: "The Jews mixed philosophy, religion, and politics. Throughout history, they have been continuously developing their religion in accordance with the circumstances, until they reached Zionism. Judaism has come to mean Zionism, and in recent times, Judaism has come to mean 'Holocaustism.' [...]

    "According to the Torah, the Lord enjoined them to conduct a seven-day sacrificial burning. The 'burning' is a sacred ritual of worship. I consider this to be proof of the falsity of the Holocaust, and biblical evidence that they have drawn the lie of the Holocaust from the Torah. Their reliance upon the Torah proves that the Holocaust is a lie, and that it never happened. It also shows that the Holocaust doctrine is deeply engrained in their minds and in their rituals."

    TV host: "On page 64 of your book, for example, you write that the Old Testament describes with great accuracy how to build a crematorium."

    Muhammad Nimr Al-Madani: "Yes. There is a text describing how to build the temple for the crematorium - its pillars, its copper ornamentation, and so on."

    TV host: "It describes the crematorium in detail."

    Muhammad Nimr Al-Madani: "Yes. For example, its size is approximately 2 meters. Bear in mind that the incinerators in the German Nazi hospitals, in which they burned the bodies of the sick, were 2 meters, or 190 centimeters. This is similar to the incinerators which they consider to be crematoria."

    TV host: "On the inner cover of the book, we read a quote by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Why did you decide to print a quote of Ahmadinejad? This is..."

    Muhammad Nimr Al-Madani: "Can we present it to the camera... I was very happy when the Iranian president denied the Holocaust. Since I am convinced of the need to fight this lie, I was filled with admiration at the words of the Iranian president."

    TV host: "He said: 'Israel should be wiped out of existence.'"

    Muhammad Nimr Al-Madani: "Yes, that's right. First of all, the Iranian president is the first leader in the world to adopt Holocaust denial. This is a great event. Secondly, the state of Israel must be wiped out of existence, as Imam Khomeini said before." [...]

    ===================
    For assistance, please contact MEMRI at
    memri@memri.org.

    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.

    MEMRI
    P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837
    Phone: (202) 955-9070
    Fax: (202) 955-9077
    www.memri.org