24 December 2012

Dutch charities spurn G4S cash over abuse of Palestinian children

Electronic Intifada | By Adri Nieuwhof | 24.12.2012 | NEDERLANDS



Two Dutch charities have refused to accept future donations from G4S after they were informed by a blogger known as Sonja about the company’s role in Israel’s detention of Palestinian children.

Meanwhile, a protest was staged outside G4S’ headquarters in London last Friday (21 December), highlighting the company’s provision of services to Israeli jails (see video above). The activists called for the immediate release of all Palestinian political prisoners, including prisoners on hunger strike. The protestors informed the public about G4S’s role in the ill-treatment of Palestinian child prisoners who are unlawfully transferred from the West Bank to prisons in Israel.

“Undesirable” cooperation

A few days later, another charity Jantje Beton — which promotes free outdoor play for children — announced on its website that it had severed its relationship with G4S, its main sponsor. Jantje Beton explained that its decision:

follows the coverage of the relationship between G4S Group and security activities in Israeli jails. Both parties agree that for Jantje Beton, which is an organization aiming to improve outdoor play facilities for children in the Netherlands, it is undesirable to cooperate with a sponsor that is associated with violations of child and human rights elsewhere. G4S Cash Solutions Netherlands had sponsored Jantje Beton since 2010.

A third charity, the Ronald McDonald Children’s Fund has indicated that it is investigating the situation, while the fouth charity, the PIM Foundation has not yet responded. G4S has removed Food Bank Utrecht and Jantje Beton from the list of charities it supports, published on its website.

G4S provides assistance to charitable causes and local community activities to cultivate an image of a “socially responsible” employer. The Dutch charities who no longer want to play a role in whitewashing G4S’s complicity in Israel’s unlawful acts have set an inspiring example.

21 December 2012

G4S en Jantje Beton stoppen sponsorovereenkomst

Jantje Beton heeft na onderzoek besloten zich niet meer door G4S te laten sponsoren. Het was dan wel de enige juiste beslissing die mogelijk was, maar ik bedank de organisatie toch voor de moed om deze te nemen. U kunt dus weer met een gerust hart doneren of op een andere manier bijdragen!


G4S Cash Solutions en Jantje Beton stoppen sponsorovereenkomst
21/12/2012

Jantje Beton en G4S Cash Solutions Nederland hebben besloten om de sponsorovereenkomst stop te zetten. Aanleiding is de berichtgeving over de relatie tussen G4S Group en beveiligingsactiviteiten in Israëlische gevangenissen. Beide partijen onderschrijven dat het voor Jantje Beton, die zich als organisatie richt op het verbeteren van buitenspeelmogelijkheden van kinderen in Nederland, onwenselijk is om met een sponsor samen te werken die in verband wordt gebracht met schending van kinder/mensenrechten elders. G4S Cash Solutions Nederland sponsorde Jantje Beton sinds 2010.


Waarom Jantje Beton deze beslissing genomen heeft, leest u op dit weblog:
Jantje Beton start onderzoek naar hoofdsponsor G4S
Hoofdsponsor van Jantje Beton houdt Palestijnse kinderen opgesloten in Israëlische gevangenissen
Voedselbank Utrecht stopt met samenwerking G4S
Corporations found guilty at Russell Tribunal second session
De Israëlische nederzettingenindustrie

TRANSLATE

Human Rights Watch: Israël pleegde oorlogsmisdaden

Israël heeft maandag voor de tweede dag op rij een gebouw in Gaza bestookt waarin veel internationale media-organisaties zijn gehuisvest. Ook Nederlandse media, waaronder de NOS en RTL Nieuws, maken gebruik van faciliteiten in de mediatoren. In het gebouw zitten ook kantoren van onder meer de Saudische nieuwszender Al-Arabiya en het Britse Sky News. (RNW, 19 november 2012)

Volgens een onderzoek van de mensenrechtenorganisatie Human Rights Watch heeft Israël tijdens haar laatste aanval op Gaza (Operatie Pillar of Defense) oorlogsmisdaden gepleegd met haar specifieke aanvallen op mediakantoren en journalisten. De organisatie bepleit een officieel onderzoek. Een woordvoerden van HRW merkt daarbij terecht op: "Alleen maar omdat Israël zegt dat een journalist een militant was, of een televisiestation een commandocentrum, wil nog niet zeggen dat dat ook zo is." Dat had een beetje journalist ook moeten weten, maar in Nederland gelden andere regels op het gebied van verslaggeving over de misdaden van Israël.

Je zou denken dat de Nederlandse "kwaliteitspers" op zijn minst een paar regels zou wijden aan het rapport of het persbericht van Human Rights Watch. En het betreft in deze zaak ook nog collega's. Maar nee, alleen het 'persbureau' Novum meldde het, waarmee het in Metronieuws en op Nieuws.nl verscheen. Niet verassend voor dit pro-Israël nieuwsbureau ontbreekt het beladen woord 'oorlogsmisdaad', en spreekt men vagelijk van "een schending van de oorlogswet".

Het beeld dat wij in Nederland van Israël door de media voorgeschoteld krijgen moet zo blijkt weer zo onbesmet mogelijk blijven. Uiteraard geldt dat in het geval van schendingen en misdaden van andere staten en landen minder, en helemaal niet wanneer het een (potentiële) 'vijand' van het Westen en van Israël betreft. Onze "kwaliteitspers" liep tijdens het bloedbad in Gaza gedwee mee met de propaganda van het Israëlische leger, en meldde dat de aanvallen op de mediagebouwen, al dan niet met "precisiebombardementen" of "surgical strikes", gericht waren op Palestijnse militanten.

Israel/Gaza: Unlawful Israeli Attacks on Palestinian Media

Missiles Kill Two Media Workers, Toddler; 10 Wounded


The deputy manager of al-Aqsa TV, Mohamed Abou Oun, inspects the car that two al-Aqsa cameraman were riding in when an Israeli missile struck them in Gaza City on November 20, 2012. The Israeli military said that Mahmoud al-Kumi, 29, and Hussam Salama, 30, were “Hamas operatives” but gave no information to support the claim. © 2012 Fred Abrahams/Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Watch | 20.12.2012 | NEDERLANDS

(Gaza City) – Four Israeli attacks on journalists and media facilities in Gaza during the November 2012 fighting violated the laws of war by targeting civilians and civilian objects that were making no apparent contribution to Palestinian military operations.

The attacks killed two Palestinian cameramen, wounded at least 10 media workers, and badly damaged four media offices, as well as the offices of four private companies. One of the attacks killed a two-year-old boy who lived across the street from a targeted building.

The Israeli government asserted that each of the four attacks was on a legitimate military target but provided no specific information to support its claims. After examining the attack sites and interviewing witnesses, Human Rights Watch found no indications that these targets were valid military objectives.

“Just because Israel says a journalist was a fighter or a TV station was a command center does not make it so,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Journalists who praise Hamas and TV stations that applaud attacks on Israel may be propagandists, but that does not make them legitimate targets under the laws of war.”

The four attacks struck a car containing two cameramen whom the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) alleged were “Hamas operatives”; antenna towers atop two buildings housing media that the IDF alleged were Hamas “operational communications infrastructure”; and two floors of a building housing media in which the IDF said it had “surgically targeted” a Hamas “intelligence and command center.”

Israeli officials sought to justify attacks on Palestinian media by saying the military had targeted individuals or facilities that “had relevance to” or were “linked with” a Palestinian armed group, or had “encouraged and lauded acts of terror against Israeli civilians.” These justifications, suggesting that it is permissible to attack media because of their associations or opinions, however repugnant, rather than their direct participation in hostilities, violate the laws of war and place journalists at grave risk, Human Rights Watch said.

Official statements that reflect the military having adopted an unlawful basis for attacks are evidence of war crimes because they show intent.

Under international humanitarian law, or the laws of war, journalists and media workers are civilians and therefore immune from attack unless they are directly participating in hostilities. Television and radio stations are civilian objects protected from attack unless they are used to make an “effective contribution to military action” and their destruction in the specific circumstances offers “a definite military advantage.” For example, a radio station that is used to transmit military orders would be a legitimate military target.Broadcasts intended to improve civilian morale or express support for attacks are not considered direct participation in hostilities.

On November 20, the IDF targeted a car on a Gaza City street with two cameramen from al-Aqsa TV, Mahmoud al-Kumi, and Hussam Salama, killing them both. The deputy head of al-Aqsa TV, which is the official television station of the Hamas government in Gaza, told Human Rights Watch that al-Kumi and Salama were cameramen covering the conflict and were returning from filming in al-Shifa Hospital in a car marked “TV.” The two men’s families, interviewed separately, said the men were neither participating in the fighting nor members of any armed group. Human Rights Watch found no evidence, including during visits to the men’s homes, to contradict that claim. Hamas’s armed wing, al-Qassam Brigades, has not put either man on its official list of killed fighters– an unlikely omission if the men had been playing a military role.

The IDF said that al-Kumi and Salama were “Hamas operatives” and cameramen for al-Aqsa, which “regularly features programming that encourages and praises attacks on Israeli civilians.” But the IDF provided no specific information that the men were Hamas fighters or otherwise directly participating in the hostilities.

Hamas-run media are protected from attack under the laws of war unless directly taking part in military operations, Human Rights Watch said.

Israeli missile strikes also hit the roofs of two high-rise buildings in Gaza City that house offices of local and international media, apparently to target antennas that Israel said Hamas was using for military communications.

The IDF struck the 11-storey Shawa and Housari Building in the early morning of November 18 with at least three missiles hitting near the base of a large antenna tower on the roof. Some of the munitions entered the office below, wounding seven staff members from the private Quds TV station, including a cameraman who lost his right leg below the knee. The office of Quds TV, a Lebanon-based satellite channel with a pro-Hamas editorial line, was badly damaged. The antenna tower on the roof above the office, which belonged to the official radio station of Islamic Jihad, al-Quds Radio, remained standing.

Another missile struck the roof above an office of the privately-owned Alwan Radio, which broadcasts talk shows and entertainment unrelated to politics, and was not broadcasting during the November fighting. The missile entered the office, which was unoccupied at the time, and damaged Alwan’s antenna, transmitter, transmission cables, and computers, the owner of the station, Wael al-Awour, told Human Rights Watch. The attack knocked Alwan off the air for more than three weeks.

Later that morning, around 6 a.m., two missiles struck the roof of the 15-storey Shoruq Building. The first penetrated the roof and caused damage in a stairwell. The second broke through the roof and badly damaged a studio of al-Aqsa TV, which was unoccupied at the time. The second missile also damaged an antenna tower on the roof that al-Aqsa said it used for its terrestrial broadcasts, knocking those broadcasts off the air. Al-Aqsa also broadcasts via satellite, and that continued uninterrupted.

A second and separate attack on the third floor of the Shoruq Building on the afternoon of November 19 appeared to target specific Palestinian militants, who, if present, would have been unlawfully placing the building’s civilian occupants at risk, Human Rights Watch said. The IDF apparently contacted at least one international journalist in the building to warn them to evacuate.

The IDF said it struck “operational communications infrastructure” on the roofs of the two high-rises with “surgical targeting.” It released videos of both strikes, which showed optically guided missiles hitting an antenna tower on each of the roofs, but provided no specific information demonstrating that those towers were being used for military purposes.

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev, when asked in a television interview about the attack on the Shawa and Housari Building, said that the IDF had targeted Hamas “communications facilities” on the roof and that no foreign journalists were hurt. When pressed about the seven wounded media workers on the floor below, he replied: “There is the al-Aqsa station, which is a station that is a Hamas command and control facility, just as in other totalitarian regimes the media is used by the regime for command and control and also for security purposes. From our point of view, that’s not a legitimate journalist.”

Regev and other Israeli officials provided no information to substantiate the claim that al-Aqsa TV or al-Quds TV were operating as command and control facilities in either of the high-rise buildings or elsewhere in Gaza.

Radio and television antenna towers are civilian objects protected from attack, making the attacks on the two buildings unlawful, Human Rights Watch said.

On November 20 and 21, at least six Israeli missiles hit the sixth and seventh floors of the eight-storey Naama Building in Gaza City, causing extensive damage to five different offices. The apparent target was al-Jeel Press Office, whose owner, Mustafa al-Sawaf, is a journalist and analyst with openly pro-Hamas views. The other offices were an advertising agency, an engineering firm and a technology company. The IDF said it had “surgically targeted” a Hamas “intelligence and command center” but did not explain the precise target in the building or its involvement in military operations.

A Human Rights Watch visit to the building one week after the strikes and interviews with employees from four of the five offices, including al-Sawaf, uncovered no information to suggest that any of them were used for military operations. In the absence of a demonstrated military objective, the strikes over two days were unlawful attacks on civilian objects, Human Rights Watch said.

No office employees were wounded in the Naama Building attacks. However, shrapnel from one of the munitions on November 21 struck an apartment across the street, killing two-year-old Abdulrahman Naim and wounding his brother and cousin.

Human Rights Watch requested information from the IDF concerning the attacks on the Aqsa cameramen, the Shawa and Housari Building, the Shoruq Building, and the Naama Building. The IDF replied that it was checking the “details of the events” and would be able to respond once this check is complete without saying when that would be.

During the November fighting, an IDF spokeswoman, Lt. Col. Avital Leibovich, told the media that the IDF targeted “people who have relevance to terror activity.” Shefurthersought to justify attacks on media by writing that Hamas’s al-Aqsa TV and a radio station called al-Quds Educational Radio, which has ties with Islamic Jihad, are “intricately linked with Islamic Jihad and Hamas and have encouraged and lauded acts of terror against Israeli civilians for the past decade.” She continued: “Such terrorists, who hold cameras and notebooks in their hands, are no different from their colleagues who fire rockets aimed at Israeli cities and cannot enjoy the rights and protection afforded to legitimate journalists.”

Regev, the Israeli government spokesman, said that those working for Hamas media cannot be considered journalists: “They are an integral part of the Hamas structure and no one can deny that fact.” He added: “All those involved in targeting Israeli civilians directly or indirectly should not feel that they have impunity.”

“Israeli officials have dangerously and unlawfully blurred the distinction between civilians who call for or support military attacks and those who directly participate in attacks,” Whitson said. “This claimed justification for attacking civilians opens the door to war crimes.”

Under the laws of war, civilians and civilian structures may not be deliberate targets of attack. Just as it is unlawful to attack the civilian population to lower its morale, it is unlawful to attack facilities that shape public opinion, such as the media; neither directly contributes to military operations.

International law obligates states to investigate serious violations of the laws of war. Victims of violations and their families should be promptly and adequately compensated. Anyone responsible for deliberately or recklessly committing a serious violation of the laws of war should be prosecuted for war crimes.

The armed conflict between Israel and Hamas and armed groups in Gaza from November 14 to 21 involved unlawful attacks on civilians by both sides. At least 103 Palestinian civilians and four Israeli civilians died during the fighting.

“Israeli forces unlawfully attacked civilians and civilian objects because of their ties to Hamas and have not shown any involvement in military operations to justify the attacks,” Whitson said.

IDF Attacks on Media During the November 2012 Fighting

Al-Aqsa TV Cameramen Mahmoud al-Kumi and Hussam Salama
On November 20, around 4:40 p.m., an Israeli missile struck a car in Gaza City, killing Mahmoud al-Kumi and Hussam Salama, two cameramen for al-Aqsa TV, the official station of the Hamas government in Gaza.

IDF spokespersons said that al-Kumi and Salama were “Hamas operatives” and cameramen for al-Aqsa, which “regularly features programming that encourages and praises attacks on Israeli civilians.” But Israel provided no specific information to support its claim that the two men were combatants or civilians actively taking part in hostilities, which would make them legitimate targets.

Human Rights Watch separately interviewed a manager at al-Aqsa TV and the families of al-Kumi and Salama. None indicated that the two men had been members of any armed group. The two were reporting on the conflict for the station and had recently gathered footage at Gaza City’s al-Shifa Hospital, the station’s deputy director, Mohamed Abu Oun, told Human Rights Watch.

Human Rights Watch saw nothing at the homes of al-Kumi or Salama that suggested they were members of any armed group, such as posters or banners honoring them as killed fighters, which is common for killed fighters from Palestinian armed groups. The websites of Hamas’s al-Qassam Brigades and Islamic Jihad’s Saraya al-Quds Brigades did not claim the men as martyrs, which they usually do for their fighters killed in combat.

Al-Kumi, 29, was married with three children, ages two, four, and five. Salama, 30, was married with four children, ages eight months, two, three, and five.

“He did not fight for Hamas or Fatah – nothing,” Salama’s father, Mohamed Salama, told Human Rights Watch. “He had nothing to do with any of the factions.”

Al-Aqsa TV said that al-Kumi began work at the station in August 2007; Salama began in January 2007. Deputy director Abu Oun said they were driving a black Renault car that was marked with “TV” and “Press.” Human Rights Watch inspected the badly burned remains of the car, in which only the hood remained intact. No signs of letters were visible on the hood but they might have burned off in the fire.

Al-Shawa and Housari Building
Around 1:30 a.m. on November 18, Israeli forces launched at least four missiles at the roof of the Shawa and Housari Building, an 11-story building in the Rimal neighborhood of Gaza City that houses local and international media offices. Israel released videoof the strike and said it had targeted “operational communications infrastructure.”

Some of the missiles penetrated the building’s roof and wounded to varying degrees seven staff members in the Quds television station, which has an office on the top floor. One of the men, Khader al-Zahar, lost his right leg below the knee. An eighth staff member suffered smoke inhalation when he went upstairs to help.

The photo director of al-Quds TV, Derwish Bulbul, who suffered bruises and smoke inhalation, told Human Rights Watch that the strike occurred unexpectedly while some of his colleagues in the office were working and others were sleeping. “We were surprised by the sound of an explosion and smoke coming down on us,” he said. He helped carry al-Zahar and another wounded colleague, Mohamed al-Akhras, out of the office, and as they were at the door a second missile hit. “Because of the explosion we were thrown to the floor,” Bulbul said.

Human Rights Watch inspected the roof and the Quds TV office on November 29. On the roof above the office was a circular hole about two meters in diameter next to the base of a large antenna tower belonging to Islamic Jihad’s al-Quds Radio that was still standing. The eastern wall of the Quds TV office below had three large holes and a fourth smaller hole. The office’s five rooms and studio containing cameras and editing equipment suffered extensive damage.

The roof had a second hole about two centimeters in diameter. That strike penetrated the roof, entered an office of the privately-owned Alwan Radio, went through a wooden door and struck the floor. No one was in the office at the time. A remnant of the munition found in the office plus the small entry hole in the roof suggests that Israel fired a narrow-diameter missile, probably an optically guided Spike missile, produced in Israel. The video released by the IDF shows an optically guided missile striking the base of the large antenna tower.

The owner of Alwan Radio, Wael al-Awour, said the attack damaged the station’s antenna, transmitter, transmission cables, servers, and computers. The station, which broadcasts talk shows and entertainment unrelated to politics, was not broadcasting during the November fighting. The damage to the equipment kept the station off the air until mid-December, al-Awour said.

Al-Quds TV is a private satellite station based in Lebanon with a pro-Hamas editorial line. The director of the station, Emad al-Efrangi, told Human Rights Watch that the station was active in covering the conflict but was not involved in any military operations.

The IDF did not assert that either al-Quds TV or Alwan Radio was the target of the attack, saying it had targeted the roof to “disrupt the internal communications of Hamas, who were using the equipment on these buildings [al-Shawa and Housari Building and al-Shoruq Building] to direct attacks against Israeli civilians.” The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs also claimed that the target was an antenna “used by Hamas for military operations.” However, neither the IDF nor the Foreign Ministry provided any specific information to show that the antenna tower was being used for military purposes. The attack did not knock down or disable the targeted antenna tower, which belonged to the official radio station of Islamic Jihad, al-Quds Radio.

Al-Shoruq Building
Israeli missiles struck the 15-story Shoruq Building, another building that houses Palestinian and international media offices, on the morning of November 18 and the afternoon of November 19. The first attack, around 6 a.m., involved two strikes on the roof, which injured two media workers on the 14th floor from broken glass and badly damaged a studio of Hamas-run al-Aqsa TV on the top floor. The studio was unoccupied at the time.

The IDF released a video of the strike on the antenna tower, which shows a missile hitting near the tower’s base. According to the IDF, the strike targeted an antenna that it called an “operational communications infrastructure.” A tweet by the IDF spokesperson after the attack said: “If Hamas commanders in #Gaza can communicate with each other, then they can attack us. This is the capability that we targeted.” The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the attack had targeted “antennas used by Hamas for military operations.” None of these assertions provided specific information linking the use of the antenna, a presumptive civilian object, to military operations, thereby making the attack unlawful.

Human Rights Watch examined the roof of the building, and saw a hole about a half meter wide next to the base of a large antenna tower used by al-Aqsa TV, which was lightly damaged but still standing. Two munition fragments seen in al-Aqsa’s studio came from an apparent Spike missile. The strike knocked al-Aqsa’s terrestrial broadcast off the air but the station continued to broadcast via satellite, an engineer at the station said. Most Gazans watch the station via satellite.

The privately owned Mayadeen media company, which provides media production for local and international clients, also has an office on the top floor. Nine staff members were in the office at the time, most sleeping, but none of them were wounded, a Mayadeen employee and witness to the attack told Human Rights Watch. The office suffered light damage, mostly broken glass.

A second attack that afternoon on the building’s third floor appears to have been on a military target, killing one member of Islamic Jihad’s armed wing, Ramez Hareb. If Palestinians involved in military operations were meeting in the Shoruq Tower, as the IDF claimed, they were placing civilians at unnecessary risk in violation of the laws of war, Human Rights Watch said. The IDF apparently contacted at least one international journalist in the building to warn them to evacuate.

Naama Building
Six Israeli missile strikes that hit the sixth and seventh floors of the eight-storey Naama Building in the Rimal neighborhood of Gaza City on November 20 and 21 wounded no one in the building but badly damaged the offices of an advertising agency, a researcher and consultant, an engineering firm, and a technology company and – possibly the intended target – a pro-Hamas journalist and analyst. Shrapnel from one of the strikes killed a two-year-old boy across the street and wounded his brother and cousin.

The IDF did not name the Naama Building but said it had “surgically targeted” the seventh floor of a “media building” in the Rimal district where Hamas was operating an “intelligence and command center.” The strike on November 21 was a joint mission of the IDF and the Internal Security Agency, the IDF said.

Human Rights Watch inspected the building on December 1 and saw no indications that it had been used for military operations. The eastern wall had four holes on the sixth floor and two on the seventh. Four witnesses to the attack said Israeli forces struck the sixth floor on November 20 at about 11 p.m. and the seventh floor on November 21 at about 3:30 p.m.

On the sixth floor, Human Rights Watch saw one hole, about one meter wide, in the outside wall of an audio studio in the advertising agency, Arts for Media and Training. Two missiles hit the next-door office of Ghazi Sourani, a researcher and consultant, ripping holes in the outside wall. Another missile broke through the outside wall of AES Engineering Services. No one was in the offices at the time of the attack.

Missiles hit two offices on the seventh floor the next day. One hit a technology company called Rama HiTech Systems. The other hit al-Jeel Press Office, owned and managed by a journalist and analyst, Mustafa al-Sawaf. The company provides reporting and media services for local and Arab websites. Al-Sawaf told Human Rights Watch that, while he holds pro-Hamas views, his media work is independent, and his office was not used for any military purposes. A different building that al-Jeel Press Office shared with other local and international media companies was struck by Israeli missiles in June 2004.

Shrapnel from the November 21 strike killed two-year-old Abdelrahman Naim, who lived across the street. His family said he was playing at home with his brother and two cousins. His 15-year-old brother, Mahmoud, and 16-year-old cousin, Sami, were lightly wounded. According to Abdelrahman’s mother, Najal Naim, and a medical report from al-Shifa Hospital viewed by Human Rights Watch, the toddler was killed from shrapnel that entered his chest. Najal Naim told Human Rights Watch:

When they first hit Nama Tower [on November 20], we heard it and saw the damage. Then we thought they hit it already, so it’s safe to stay. My house was full: me, my husband, my children, and my brother-in-law. I have six kids. Seventeen people were here in total.

Abdelrahman was playing here [in the living room]. I heard the missile hit the tower; all the glass in the apartment broke, and some of the pieces came in. Mohamed, my son, was playing with Abdelrahman and two nephews. A small piece of shrapnel hit his chest, and he died immediately. Blood came from his mouth and nose. He made no sound.

TRANSLATE

18 December 2012

Jantje Beton start onderzoek naar hoofdsponsor G4S

UPDATE: op 21 december besloot Jantje Beton de sponsorovereenkomst met G4S te beëindigen.


Subvertisement, King's Cross, London 2012

Afgelopen zaterdag heet Jantje Beton te kennen gegeven de activiteiten (zie links onderaan) van haar hoofdsponsor G4S te onderzoeken. Het Ronald MacDonald Kinderfonds heeft eerder gemeld dat de door mij geleverde informatie 'aandacht verdient', en zal er een reactie op geven. Maar na de feestdagen, vanwege de 'drukte'. De Voedselbank Uterecht heeft inmiddels haar samenwerking met G4S opgezegd. G4S heeft de Voedselbank inmiddels van haar lijst van goede doelen gehaald. Stichting Pim is vooralsnog onbereikbaar. Meer informatie op dit weblog:

Hoofdsponsor van Jantje Beton houdt Palestijnse kinderen opgesloten in Israëlische gevangenissen
Voedselbank Utrecht stopt met samenwerking G4S
Corporations found guilty at Russell Tribunal second session
De Israëlische nederzettingenindustrie


Human rights campaigners have demonstrated outside London Stock Exchange today on June 7 against the private security company G4S as its Annual General Meeting takes place, urging the firm to end its involvement in human rights abuses around the world.
While the G4S Company faces serious accusations of involving in abuse of rights by providing equipment to the Israeli regime’s prisons, it was recently awarded contracts to provide security for the London Olympic Games. (7 juni 2012)

TRANSLATE

14 December 2012

Voedselbank Utrecht stopt met samenwerking G4S

UPDATE: op 21 december besloot Jantje Beton de sponsorovereenkomst met G4S te beëindigen.

Goed nieuws op het BDS-front. VoedselbankPLUS van de Stichting De Tussenvoorziening, de Utrechtse Voedselbank, heeft mij te kennen gegeven dat het niet meer gesponsord wil worden door het controversiële beveiligingsbedrijf G4S: meer informatie op dit weblog. Hoewel de Voedselbank haar sponsors gewoonlijk niet controleert op hun internationale activiteiten, heeft de organisatie na de verontrustende nieuwsberichten over het bedrijf besloten geen gebruik meer te maken van het aanbod van G4S, en zegt het de samenwerking met de Brits-Deense multinational op.

Ik ben enorm blij met het onbaatzuchtige besluit van de Voedselbank. Ze gaan daardoor wel een stukje sponsoring missen en ik vraag hierbij aan mijn lezers of ze misschien nog wat in de knip hebben zitten. Zo voor de kerst. De Voedselbank Utrecht helpt wekelijks rond de 550 gezinnen met een voedselpakket en met sociaal-juridische bijstand. Stichting de Tussenvoorziening is een Algemeen Nut Beogende Instelling (ANBI) en heeft geen winstoogmerk. Neem voor het doen van donaties in de vorm van voedsel contact op met een van de uitgiftepunten of met het algemene nummer van VoedselbankPLUS Utrecht: 06-12232115, of klik hier voor het doen van financiële donaties.


Foto: Israëlische bezettingssoldaten bewaken gearresteerde Palestijnse kinderen op de Westelijke Jordaanoever.

Nog geen reactie van Jantje Beton, waarvan G4S de hoofdsponsor is. De samenwerkingsovereenkomst tussen Jantje Beton en G4S is in 2010 ondertekend door directeur Rob van Gaal van Jantje Beton en algemeen directeur Gert Askes van G4S Cash Solutions.

"Jantje Beton komt op voor de speelkansen van alle kinderen in Nederland. Als kinderen spelen hebben ze niet alleen plezier, ze doen ook allerlei ervaringen op die goed zijn voor hun ontwikkeling. Met name voor kinderen die door omstandigheden in de verdrukking dreigen te komen, is dat extra belangrijk." (Anbi.nl)

→ VN persbericht: Children in solitary confinement: “Israel’s pattern of abuse is inhumane, cruel, degrading and unlawful” – UN expert

→ VN persbericht: “Boycott businesses that profit from Israeli settlements” – UN Special Rapporteur

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, Richard Falk, today called on the UN General Assembly and civil society to take action against Israeli and international businesses that are profiting from Israeli settlements.

Highlighting the activities of Caterpillar Incorporated (USA); Veolia Environment (France); G4S (United Kingdom); The Dexia Group (Belgium); Ahava (Israel); the Volvo Group (Sweden); the Riwal Holding Group (the Netherlands); Elbit Systems (Israel); Hewlett Packard (USA); Mehadrin (Israel); Motorola (USA); Assa Abloy (Sweden); and Cemex (Mexico), Mr. Falk noted that a wide range of Israeli and international businesses are involved in the establishment and maintenance of Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory.

Foto: G4S levert Jantje Beton cheque van 50.000 euro af bij Openbare Basisschool De Triangel in Weesp. Palestijnse kinderen kennen G4S alleen als een bedrijf dat ervoor zorgt dat ze 'veilig' (en geïsoleerd) opgesloten worden in Israëlische militaire (!) gevangenissen, dat hun bezetters beveiligt bij checkpoints en de Apartheidsmuur, en dat de illegale kolonisten beveiligt op het van hun ouders gestolen land.

→ Middle East Monitor (2010): Israeli Shin Bet electrocuted child prisoners to extract confessions

Het gevangenzetten van kinderen is een schending van
diverse internationale wetten. G4S helpt Israël daarbij.

Mocht u het ook van de gekke vinden dat Jantje Beton een samenwerking is aangegaan met G4S laat dat dan vooral horen:
Website: www.jantjebeton.nl
Email: info@jantjebeton.nl
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/jantjebetonline
Twitter: @jantjebetonline

Meer op dit weblog:
Hoofdsponsor van Jantje Beton houdt Palestijnse kinderen opgesloten in Israëlische gevangenissen
Jantje Beton start onderzoek naar hoofdsponsor G4S
Corporations found guilty at Russell Tribunal second session
De Israëlische nederzettingenindustrie



An important report published by a group of British lawyers, funded by the Foreign Office, has highlighted the inhumane treatment of Palestinian child prisoners by Israel.


Israel Police arrest children aged 12 to 15 in night raids in Silwan, East Jerusalem (2010)

TRANSLATE

Europees Hof veroordeelt uitleveringsprogramma CIA


Het Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens (EHRM) heeft zich gisteren van haar beste kant laten zien: het kwam op voor een Duitse staatsburger wiens rechten bijna negen jaar lang zijn onthouden - na ontvoering, opsluiting in een geheime gevangenis en marteling onder het het geheime uitleveringsprogramma ("extraordinary rendition program") van de Amerikaanse inlichtingendienst CIA (uitspraak, pdf). Zowel Amnesty International als de Amerikaanse burgerrechtenorganisatie ACLU noemden de uitspraak van het EHRM een historische mijlpaal en enorme overwinning voor het recht en de rechtsorde. De Nederlanderlandse media berichten er echter zeer zuinig over. Hoe anders zou dat zijn wanneer het niet de CIA betrof, maar bijvoorbeeld de Iraanse of Syrische geheime dienst. Dan zouden onze politici verontwaardigd hebben gereageerd en de Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken tot actie aangezet hebben. In de zaak Khaled El-Masri is dat in al die jaren op geen enkel moment gebeurd.

The Guardian:

Khaled El-Masri, a German national, was seized by Macedonian security officers on 31 December 2003, at a border crossing, because he had been mistaken for an al-Qaida suspect. He was held incommunicado and abused in Macedonian custody for 23 days, after which he was handcuffed, blindfolded, and driven to Skopje airport, where he was handed over to the CIA and severely beaten.

The CIA stripped, hooded, shackled, and sodomized el-Masri with a suppository – in CIA parlance, subjected him to "capture shock" – as Macedonian officials stood by. The CIA drugged him and flew him to Kabul to be locked up in a secret prison known as the "Salt Pit", where he was slammed into walls, kicked, beaten, and subjected to other forms of abuse. Held at the Salt Pit for four months, el-Masri was never charged, brought before a judge, or given access to his family or German government representatives.

The CIA ultimately realised that it had mistaken el-Masri for an al-Qaida suspect with a similar name. But it held on to him for weeks after that. It was not until 24 May 2004, that he was flown, blindfolded, earmuffed, and chained to his seat, to Albania, where he was dumped on the side of the road without explanation.

In december 2005 gaf Angela Merkel samen met Condoleezza Rice toe dat de VS een fout had gemaakt. Maar de Amerikaanse regering weigerde haar beschamende rol in deze zaak toe te geven: het nam de aanklacht van het slachtoffer niet in behandeling omdat het om "staatsgeheimen" zou gaan, en het Amerikaanse Hooggerechtshof weigerde de zaak in behandeling te nemen, omdat "the State’s interest in preserving State secrets outweighed Mr El-Masri’s individual interest in justice." Macedonië blijft keihard ontkennen ondanks de overvloed aan bewijzen, en nam El-Masri's aanklacht niet in behandeling. De Duitse regering weigerde onder druk van de Amerikaanse regering om informatie over de zaak naar buiten te brengen.

Het EHMR heeft geoordeeld dat zowel Macedonië als de VS een uitgebreide publieke verontschuldiging moeten maken en dat een passende schadeloosstelling moet uitkeren. Maar dat lezen we niet in de Nederlandse nieuwsmedia - voor zover ze al over de uitspraak berichten. Het Hof heeft na haar onderzoek vastgesteld dat het verhaal van El-Masri "beyond reasonable doubt" geloofwaardig was:

As to the facts of the case, the Court noted that Mr El-Masri’s account, contested by the Government, had been very detailed, specific and consistent throughout the whole period following his return to Germany. His account was furthermore supported by a large amount of indirect evidence obtained during the international inquiries and the investigation by the German authorities, on the basis of which the Marty Report had concluded that there had been a “documented rendition” and that the Government’s version of events was untenable. Finally, the statement by the former Macedonian Minister of the Interior submitted to the Court was confirmation of the facts established in the course of the other investigations and of Mr El-Masri’s consistent and coherent description of events.

CIA niet schuldig?

Hoewel het Europese Hof met haar uitspraak ook de illegale en criminele activiteiten van de CIA en (zodoende) de Amerikaanse regering onderstreept - of waarschijnlijker: juist daarom - blijft de volgzame Nederlandse pers spreken in termen van 'volgens...'. Alsof de uitspraak van het EHRM om een mening gaat, die als zodanig betwijfeld kan worden. Maar nooit lezen we in Nederlandse pers zinnen als: 'Volgens de rechtbank is X schuldig...', of 'De rechtbank vond dat X naar de gevangenis moest'. Dat zou natuurlijk belachelijk zijn. Maar blijkbaar niet wanneer het Amerikaanse blazoen fris gehouden moet worden. Daar waar zelfs in de VS koppen in de pers verschijnen als Court Finds Rights Violation in C.I.A. Rendition Case (New York Times) houdt onze polderpers het op een schuldigverklaring van Macedonië.

NOS: Macedonië gestraft voor uitleveren aan CIA
Juriste Bibi van Ginkel, onderzoekster bij instituut Clingendael, spreekt genoegzaam in de verleden tijd over het uitleveringsprogramma en de geheime gevangenissen van de CIA, alsof dat beleid allang is afgeschaft. Toch mag zij als 'deskundige' een commentaar geven.

NOS: Boete voor uitlevering aan CIA
"Toen het de CIA-agenten duidelijk werd dat hij onschuldig was, werd Masri naar Albanië gebracht en op een weg achtergelaten." Verzwegen wordt dat El-Masri nog langer werd vastgehouden nadat het de CIA én de Amerikaanse regering (dus niet enkele betrokken CIA-agenten) duidelijk was dat het om een naamsverwisseling ging. Verzwegen wordt ook dat El-Masri negen jaar lang in de VS en in Macedonië zijn recht heeft geprobeerd te halen, maar overal nul op het rekest kreeg. Ook is er geen "boete" uitgedeeld, want gaat het gaat slechts om een kleine schadevergoeding van 60.000 euro.

De Telegraaf: "Volgens de rechters van de Raad van Europa was dat een schending van internationale mensenrechtenverdragen." We hebben bij de Telegraaf dus niet te maken met een veroordeling maar met een mening van een paar rechters, die niet per sé waar hoeft te zijn.

Nieuws.nl (Novum/AP) meldt dat El-Masri een "ontvoeringsslachtoffer" was. Ook hier worden we weer geconfronteerd met 'meningen': "El-Masri zegt dat hij werd aangezien voor een terreurverdachte", terwijl het Hof na uitgebreid onderzoek dat als bewezen feit heeft vastgesteld. We lezen ook: "volgens een onderzoek van de Raad van Europa in 2007 [hebben] veertien Europese landen toegestaan dat de CIA tussen 2002 en 2005 detentiecentra runde of verdachten daar met geheime vluchten naar overbracht." Blijkbaar was de uitslag van dat onderzoek ook maar een mening.

Trouw, het Algemeen Dagblad en de Volkskrant beweren middels een ANP-bericht dat het Hof uitsluitend de overdracht aan de CIA heeft veroordeeld en verzwijgt wat er daarvoor in Macedonië is gebeurd. En dat hij pas na de overdracht werd gemarteld en zonder vorm van proces vastgehouden. Ook dat is een onjuiste voorstelling van zaken. En door wie het slachtoffer gemarteld werd wordt niet vermeld. Ook hier wordt (tot twee keer toe) weer een mening van rechters verondersteld: "Volgens de rechters van de Raad van Europa was dat een schending van internationale mensenrechtenverdragen." Wat het slachtoffer in de geheime CIA-gevangenis in Afghanistan heeft moeten doorstaan wordt niet gemeld. De man is dan wel gemarteld, maar door wie wordt niet vermeld. Zijn ontvoering komt niet ter sprake, en ook niet dat het Hof Macedonië schuldig heeft bevonden aan het schenden van meerdere internationale overeenkomsten.

En dat was het voor wat betreft de Nederlandse pers (8 berichten), die aan het nieuwsaanbod te zien meer belang hecht aan informatie over een gestrande bultrug die we Johannes hebben genoemd (202 berichten).

Over de collaboratie van de Duitse regering en overheid met de CIA in deze zaak, en bij andere illegale activiteiten, lezen we helemaal niets. Der Spiegel publiceerde daar echter al in 2005 over in een zeer uitgebreid artikel: Cooperation and Concern from Berlin - CIA Operations in Germany.

TRANSLATE | NEDERLANDS

13 December 2012

Hoofdsponsor van Jantje Beton houdt Palestijnse kinderen opgesloten in Israëlische gevangenissen

UPDATE: op 21 december besloot Jantje Beton de sponsorovereenkomst met G4S te beëindigen.


Israëlische soldaten bewaken gearresteerde kinderen op de Westelijke Jordaanoever.

Het controversiële beveiligingsbedrijf Group4Securicor (G4S), een Brits-Deense multinational, assisteert Israël op allerlei manieren met de bezetting van de Palestijnen, waarmee het internationaal recht wordt geschonden en mensenrechtenschendingen worden gepleegd. Het levert de beveiligingsapparatuur en services voor Israëlische gevangenissen met Palestijnse politieke gevangenen. Het beveiligt illegale joodse nederzettingen op de Westelijke Jordaanoever. En het levert uitrusting en onderhoud aan de Israëlische militaire checkpoints op de Westelijke Jordaanoever, alsook de grensovergangen rond Gaza, die de internationaal veroordeelde en de mensonterende blokkade uitvoeren.


Presentatie van G4S over haar beveiliging van de Israëlische Ofer-gevangenis op de West Bank - een schending van het internationaal recht. Wikipedia: "one of the most notorious for known practices of torture perpetrated against Palestinian inmates". Daar worden ook Palestijnse kinderen opgesloten.

G4S beveiligt ook de Apartheidsmuur in de bezette Palestijnse gebieden, die in strijd is met het internationaal recht, zo oordeelde het Internationaal Strafhof in 2004. Het Internationaal Gerechtshof in Den Haag bepaalde bovendien dat alle bij de VN aangesloten landen zich moeten inzetten om de Muur onmogelijk te maken. Het financieel, militair, economisch, politiek en diplomatiek steunen van de Israelische politiek is zodoende in strijd met de door beschaafde landen getekende verdragen. Daarnaast levert G4S beveiligingssystemen voor hoofdkwartieren van de Israëlische politie op de Westelijke Jordaanoever. De details van de locaties en de schendingen zijn te lezen in een rapport van de organisatie Who Profits? uit 2011.

Eergisteren berichtte Adri Nieuwhof over de eenzame opsluiting van zes Palestijnse kinderen in Israelische gevangenissen - beveiligd door G4S.

The boys have spent on average 14.5 days in solitary confinement, ranging from four to 29 days. Following their detention in al-Jalame, the boys were transferred to Megiddo prison. The transfer into Israel and subsequent detention of the boys violates the Fourth Geneva Convention Articles 49 and 76.


Israëlische soldaten bedreigen schoolmeisjes bij checkpoint - beveiligd door G4S.

G4S opereert ook in Nederland. Hier poetst het haar imago op met de sponsoring van goede doelen en de schaatssport. Schokkend is dat drie van de vier door G4S gesponsorde goede doelen, wanneer je de rapporten over de kindgevangenen ernaast legt, gericht zijn op kinderen. Het betreft Jantje Beton (hoofdsponsor sinds 2010), het Ronald McDonald Kinderfonds, Stichting Pim en de Utrechtse Voedselbank.

De website van Jantje Beton besteed veel aandacht aan haar "exclusieve samenwerkingsovereenkomst" met G4S. Het motto van Jantje Beton luidt:

Kinderen moeten veilig, vrij en avontuurlijk buiten kunnen spelen in hun eigen buurt.

Met Israël heeft G4S echter een andere exclusieve samenwerkingsovereenkomst gesloten. G4S steunt Jantje Beton met geld, mankracht en Jantje Beton-stickers op haar wagens.


Human rights activists protest at G4S firm’s role in human rights abuses outside London Stock Exchange on June 7, 2012.

Meer op dit weblog:
Voedselbank Utrecht stopt met samenwerking G4S
Jantje Beton start onderzoek naar hoofdsponsor G4S
Corporations found guilty at Russell Tribunal second session
De Israëlische nederzettingenindustrie

Rapporten:

WhoProfits: The Case of G4S - Private Security Companies and the Israeli Occupation

Defense for children International: Bound, Blindfolded and Convicted: Children held in military detention

UK report finds IDF tortures Palestinian children

Nieuwsberichten:

Israeli prisons equipped by notorious security firm G4S hold Palestinian teens in solitary confinement

→ New Statesman: How G4S helps Israel break the Geneva convention

→The Guardian special report: The Palestinian children – alone and bewildered – in Israel's Al Jalame jail

Danish clients dump G4S because of security company’s ties to Israeli occupation

'Firm sold Israel torture instruments'

University of Oslo to end G4S contract over support for Israeli apartheid

London Olympics security firm G4S helps Israel abuse Palestinian children in solitary confinement

Amnesty International
"Leicester Amnesty International are supporting the campaign to end G4S's involvement in security and caretaking services in five schools in Leicester due to their poor record on human rights in the UK and beyond."

Energy firm ditches occupation profiteer G4S
British firm Good Energy has announced that it will end its business relationship with G4S, the private security giant with a track record of complicity in Israel’s human rights abuses.

G4S in Israel: The Soldiers of Global Occupation

CNN report: IDF sexually abuse Palestinian children

Breaking the Silence report details soldiers humiliating and torturing Palestinian children and using them as human shields

TRANSLATE

12 December 2012

US Dutifully Offers to Replace Israeli Munitions Spent on Gaza

US to sell Israel $647 million worth of bombs and munitions to renew stock after Operation Pillar of Defense

AntiWar.com | By John Glaser | 11.12.2012 | NEDERLANDS

The United States is selling Israel munitions worth $647 million in order to make up for the military inventory Israeli Defense Forces used up during the massive bombings in Gaza during Operation Pillar of Defense last month.

The deal “will include the supply of 6,900 precision bomb kits” as well as “10,000 bombs of various kinds – 3,450 bombs weighing a ton each, 1,725 bombs weighing 250 kilograms each, 1,725 BLU-109 bunker-buster bombs, and 3,450 GBU-39 bunker-buster bombs,” reports Haaretz.

Israel instigated a conflict with Gaza militants last month, blaming retaliatory rocket fire into Israel as having been initiatory, and proceeding to bomb residential areas, killing about 180 people and injuring over 900, mostly civilians (compared with 6 Israelis killed).

Palestinian authorities said that the cost of 120 buildings completely destroyed and 8,000 buildings damaged amounted to $1.2 billion. These are damages that the Washington is partly responsible for, considering all Israeli military operations are enabled by unmatched US economic and military aid. Still, the US thought it more appropriate to rebuild Israel’s military arsenal rather than aid in the rebuilding of a destroyed Gaza.

Throughout the escalating skirmish, US officials continued their one-sided support of Israel. But immediately and dutifully replacing all of the bombs Israel exhausted on the people of Gaza is more a sign of support than any of the rhetoric they offered last month.

Fascisme en massapsychologie

Auteur: Wilhem Reich
Geschreven: 1933
Bron: R-reeks (nr. 3), Uitgave AU, Groningen
Vertaling: Waarschijnlijk “AU” — zie ‘Verantwoording’ onderaan de tekst
Deze versie: Spelling aangepast
Transcriptie: Adrien Verlee
HTML: Adrien Verlee voor het Marxists Internet Archive, oktober 2005

Leider en structuur van de massa

Als de geschiedenis van het maatschappelijke proces de burgerlijke historici de tijd geeft om over enige decennia beschouwingen over het Duitse verleden te produceren, dan zullen zij in Hitlers succes in de jaren 1928-1933 het bewijs zien dat slechts “de grote man” geschiedenis maakt, en wel omdat deze de massa door zijn ideeën doet ontvlammen, inderdaad is de ideologie van de leider een grondbeginsel van de nationaal-socialistische propaganda. Zo min als de propagandisten van het nationaal-socialisme het mechanisme van hun succes bekend is, zo min begrijpen zij de historische grondslag van de nationaal-socialistische beweging. Het is daarom volkomen consequent dat de nationaal-socialist Wilhelm Stapel in zijn geschrift Christendom en nationaal-socialisme toentertijd schreef:

Aangezien het nationaal-socialisme een elementaire beweging is, kan men niet met “argumenten” aankomen. Argumenten zouden slechts zin hebben als de beweging door argumenten groot geworden was.

Het zakelijke niveau van de nationaal-socialistische toespraken toonde duidelijk deze karakteristiek, waarbij gespeeld werd op de gevoelens van de massa en argumentatie zoveel mogelijk vermeden werd. Hitler beklemtoont op verschillende plaatsen in zijn boek Mein Kampf dat de juiste massapsychologische tactiek van argumentatie afziet en slechte het “grote einddoel” onophoudelijk aan de massa moet voorhouden. Hoe het er dan met het einddoel na de greep naar de macht uitziet kan gemakkelijk in het Italiaanse fascisme aangetoond worden, evenzeer als de jongste uitlatingen van Göring aan het adres van de economische organisaties van de middenstand, het afzweren van de door de aanhang verwachte “tweede revolutie”, het onvervuld blijven van de beloofde socialistische maatregelen, etc., reeds de eigenlijke, objectieve functie van het fascisme onthullen. Hoe weinig Hitler zèlf het mechanisme van zijn succes kent, laten onderstaande regels zien:

“Alleen deze grote lijn, die nooit verlaten mag worden, leidt bij steeds gelijkblijvende consequente beklemtoning uiteindelijk tot succes. Dan zal men echter met verbazing kunnen vaststellen tot welke enorme bijna onbegrijpelijke resultaten een dergelijke consequentie leidt.” (Mein Kampf).

Hitlers succes kan dus in geen geval uit zijn objectieve rol in de geschiedenis van het kapitalisme verklaard worden, want die zou, indien deze tot de inhoud van de propaganda had behoord, het tegendeel van het beoogde hebben bereikt. Het onderzoek naar de massapsychologische werking van het fenomeen Hitler moet van de premisse uitgaan dat een leider of een vertegenwoordiger van een idee slechts succes heeft (zo niet in historisch, dan wel in een door de tijd begrensd perspectief), als zijn persoonlijke kijk, zijn ideologie, zijn program aanslaat bij de gemiddelde structuur van een brede laag massa-individuen.

Dan doemt verder de vraag op, aan welke historische en sociologische situatie deze massastructuren hun ontstaan te danken hebben. Zo wordt de vraagstelling van de massapsychologie verlegd van de metafysica naar de werkelijkheid van het maatschappelijk leven. Alleen wanneer de structuur van een leider samenvalt met de massa-individuele structuren van brede bevolkingslagen, kan een “leider” geschiedenis maken. En of hij nu definitief of slechts tijdelijk geschiedenis maakt, hangt alleen maar af van het feit of zijn programma overeenstemt met de richting waarin het maatschappelijke proces zich ontwikkelt of zich ertegen afzet. Het is daarom niet alleen verkeerd, maar zelfs politiek misleidend, om Hitlers succes uitsluitend te verklaren uit de nationalistische demagogie met zijn “dom houden van de massa”, met zijn “misleiding” of zelfs met het vage, nietszeggende begrip “nazipsychologie”, zoals zowaar communisten veelvuldig deden. Het komt er thans op aan te begrijpen waarom de massa de (objectief gezien) wezenlijke misleiding, het dom houden en de psychotische situatie accepteren. Dat wil zeggen, zonder een zorgvuldige analyse van wat er in de massa omgaat, kan men het probleem niet oplossen. Ook niet met de verklaring van de objectieve rol van de Hitlerbeweging in het historische proces. Want zoals gezegd, is het succes van de NSDAP in tegenspraak met deze rol. Een tegenspraak die alleen massapsychologisch op te lossen is.

10 December 2012

Churchill for dummies

"Tot op de dag van vandaag is Churchill een voorbeeld voor mensen overal ter wereld, die strijden voor hun vrijheid ondanks dat ze tegen een overmacht lijken te staan. ... Nog nooit hebben zovelen zoveel te danken gehad aan één man: Winston Churchill."

Dat lezen we in de 'leerstof' Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965) : De man die de vrijheid redde op histotheek.nl, een website waar scholieren 'informatie' over de geschiedenis vergaren. En blijkbaar nog steeds, net als mijn generatie, gebrainwashed worden, door o.a. Westerse (koloniale) oorlogsmisdadigers als helden af te schilderen.


Young Winston Churchill.

The Spectator (2004):

Churchill for dummies

Winston S. Churchill is the hero of George W. Bush and the neocons. But, says Michael Lind, they know very little about the great wartime leader. If they did, they’d be horrified


Soon after the installation by the Republican-majority Supreme Court of George the Second of the House of Bush, the American people learned that they had a new Founding Father: Winston Churchill. President George W. Bush let it be known that he had placed a bust of the British statesman in the White House Oval Office he had inherited from his dad. After the attack on the World Trade Center, the President’s speeches became self-consciously Churchillian. Earlier this year, marking the opening of a Churchill exhibition at the Library of Congress, Bush observed that Churchill was not just ‘the rallying voice of the second world war’ but also ‘a prophet of the Cold War’.

Like his grand strategy, with its combination of unilateral American world domination with nearly indiscriminate support for Israel’s Ariel Sharon, the cult of Churchill has been adopted by Bush from American neoconservatives. Churchill looms far larger in the mythology of neoconservatives than in the minds of mainstream Americans, who think of him as the brave and witty ally of President Franklin Roosevelt in the war against Hitler.

The Weekly Standard, the neoconservative magazine funded by Rupert Murdoch and edited by William Kristol, has become the centre of the neocon Churchill cult. A Nexus search of the Weekly Standard of the past five years alone reveals 122 articles that mention Churchill. Typical is an essay of 4 March 1999 entitled ‘How Winston Churchill Can Save Us — Again’ by one Larry Arn, a frequent contributor who is an academic adviser to something called the International Churchill Society.

On 10 January 2000, the Weekly Standard declared that Winston Churchill was ‘Man of the Century’. This view is the consensus among the neocons. Charles Krauthammer, the Canadian émigré pundit, has written, ‘After having single-handedly saved Western civilisation from Nazi barbarism — Churchill was, of course, not sufficient in bringing victory, but he was uniquely necessary — he then immediately rose to warn prophetically against its sister barbarism, Soviet communism.’ Krauthammer’s fellow Canadian émigré, David Frum, denounced Bill Clinton for declaring that Franklin Roosevelt was the ‘Man of the Century’. According to Frum, who was still a subject of Her Majesty when he was hired as a speechwriter by George W. Bush’s White House, ‘FDR has to be found wanting. Of the three great killers of this century, one (Mao) was aided by Communist sympathisers within the Roosevelt administration ...Another (Stalin) benefited from Roosevelt’s almost wilful naiveté about the Soviet Union ...Roosevelt’s record even on the third killer, Hitler, is spotty. Roosevelt recognised Hitler’s danger early, but he hesitated to jeopardise his hopes for an unprecedented third term by riling isolationist opinion...’. Reading Krauthammer and Frum, you have to wonder whether Winston Churchill might not have ‘single-handedly’ won the second world war and saved civilisation even sooner, if he had not been handicapped by his alliance with the United States.

Only a Canadian like Frum could claim that FDR was an appeaser, compared with Churchill. It was Churchill who, in 1937, wrote in his book Great Contemporaries, ‘One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.’ Churchill’s posthumous reputation as an uncompromising anti-Soviet hardliner is another neocon myth. True, Churchill’s ‘Iron Curtain’ speech of 1946 was seen as too strident by the Truman administration and much of the American public. But during the war it was Churchill, not FDR, who haggled with Stalin over ‘percentages’ of postwar influence in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. And in the mid-Fifties Churchill thought that Eisenhower was too hard on the Soviets and kept pushing the naive idea that a big-power summit could end the Cold War. The neocons never quote Churchill’s statement of 1954, ‘To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.’ The neocon goal of promoting democracy worldwide was shared by FDR and Woodrow Wilson, but not by the Tory Prime Minister who called Gandhi a ‘fakir’ and announced that he would not preside over the dissolution of the British Empire.

The peculiar neocon cult of Churchill has several sources. One is the veneration by the neocons of Leo Strauss, the German-Jewish émigré philosopher who taught at the University of Chicago and indoctrinated many leading neocon thinkers, including the late Allan Bloom. In declaring Churchill the ‘Man of the Century’, the Weekly Standard piously reprinted remarks that Strauss made at the time of Churchill’s death in 1965. Strauss’s Churchill was Hitler’s nemesis: ‘The contrast between the indomitable and magnanimous statesman and the insane tyrant — this spectacle in its clear simplicity was one of the greatest lessons which men can learn, at any time.’

Straussians like Leon Kass, the president of Bush’s bioethics panel, are opposed not only to reproductive cloning, but also to therapeutic cloning, embryonic stem-cell research and the well established practice of in vitro fertilisation. In an essay entitled ‘Can There Be Another Winston Churchill?’, published in 1981, the Straussian scholar Harry V. Jaffa claimed that Churchill would have opposed modern biotechnology: ‘Churchill’s most formative years were spent during the heyday of what we might call the evolutionary enlightenment. This was the period when the progress of Science, and in particular biological Science, gave rise to widespread hopes that the human species itself might deliberately be evolved ...The fittest might be planned in laboratories, and the test of their fitness would be their faculty for the harmonious and simultaneous enjoyment of all the objects of their desires.’ Churchill, Jaffa tells us, ‘implied that this state of perfect freedom, were it possible, would be a state of perfect misery’.

Jaffa doesn’t quote Churchill on this subject — possibly because, contrary to his implication, Churchill, unlike today’s American neocons, was an enthusiastic supporter of eugenics, who told Asquith in 1910, ‘The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate ... I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed.’ Hitler’s ultimately genocidal programme of ‘racial hygiene’ began with the kind of compulsory sterilisation of ‘the feeble-minded and insane classes’ that Churchill urged on the British government (and which was carried out in many states in the US in the early 20th century).

Two other factors influencing neocon Churchill mania are ‘the Anglosphere’ and Israel. As Jeet Heer pointed out in the National Post of Canada on 29 March 2003, ‘Today’s advocates of empire share one surprising trait: very few of them were born in the United States. [Dinesh] D’Souza was born in India, and [Paul] Johnson in Britain — where he still lives. [Mark] Steyn, [Charles] Krauthammer and [Michael] Ignatieff all hail from Canada ...’ Heer quotes Max Boot, a Russian-born neocon: ‘I think there’s more openness among children of the British Empire to the benefits of imperialism.’ Like Churchill, whose mother was American and who chronicled the history of the English-speaking peoples, the neocons and allied British conservatives like Conrad Black and John O’Sullivan, now editor of the Washington-based journal the National Interest, are enthusiastic about the idea that the world should be led by the ‘Anglosphere’. Outside these circles, however, the idea of an English-speaking union is ignored today as in the past by most Americans, who don’t see why Australia’s south-east Asian borders should be America’s.

As for the Israeli connection — a familiar feature of neocon ideology — Churchill, a lifelong supporter of Zionism, was a social Darwinist who preferred Jews to Arabs. On one occasion he wrote of the legitimacy of displacing ‘the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race, has come in and taken their place.’ Churchill’s Zionism coexisted with a fear that the Jews, deprived of a homeland, might make trouble for the world. In an essay that he wrote for the Illustrated Sunday Herald in 1920 entitled ‘Zionism versus Bolshevism’, which the neocons never quote, Churchill ranted that Jews were behind world revolutions everywhere: ‘This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky [Russia], Bela Kun [Hungary], Rosa Luxemburg [Germany], and Emma Goldman [the United States] ... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.’ If Jews, whom Churchill described as denizens of ‘the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America’, could have their homeland, perhaps they would not — to use Churchill’s words — conspire ‘for the overthrow of civilisation’.

Most American neocons know only the sanitised version of Churchill as a philo-semitic Zionist fellow traveller presented by Martin Gilbert. In an essay entitled ‘Israel at 50’, Alan Bock wrote, ‘Sir Martin Gilbert, the incredibly prolific British historian (and secular Jew, as he described himself to me), best known for his multi-volume treatment of the life and times of Winston Churchill, puts it this way in his new book, Israel: A History: “Israel is not only a nation that for the first three decades of its existence was surrounded by sworn enemies, but one that, following a victorious war in 1967, has had to share part of its own land with another people.”’ According to Churchill hagiographer Gilbert, then, even before 1967 the West Bank and Gaza were part of Israel’s ‘own land’.

While most Americans think of Churchill as the foe of the Nazis, many right-wing Jews in the United States and Israel revere him for his role in promoting European-Jewish colonisation of Palestine at the expense of the Arabs. When he was colonial secretary in the early 1920s, Churchill hived off Jordan from the rest of the Palestinian mandate. For years, American neocons, disseminating the propaganda of the Israeli Right, have claimed that Jordan or the ‘Trans-Jordan’ is, or should be, the only ‘Palestinian’ state. This Likud party propaganda line is echoed by non-Jewish neocons including William Bennett, who wrote in an essay entitled ‘Standing with Israel’, ‘There is no reason Jews should not be able to live in the West Bank.’ The fact that the UN partition of Palestine in 1947–48 superseded all previous British decisions is ignored by radical Jewish and Christian Zionists in the US and Israel.

In a speech to the House of Commons on 26 January 1949, Churchill repeated the Israeli lie that the Palestinians had voluntarily fled the country: ‘All this Arab population fled in terror to behind the advancing forces of their own religion.’ The Israeli historian Benny Morris, on the basis of Israeli archives, has shown how the Israeli government carried out a premeditated policy of deliberate ethnic cleansing during the war. When he turned 80 in 1954, the state of Israel sent Churchill a floral arrangement in the shape of a cigar.

It should be no surprise, then, that the neocon cult of Churchill flourishes in Israel as well as in the US. Shortly before he was appointed as senior director for Near Eastern and North African affairs at the National Security Council — a post that gave him responsibility for Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Syria and Iran — Elliott Abrams gave a speech comparing Ariel Sharon to Winston Churchill. ‘Sharon’s no Churchill,’ complained Don Feder, another neoconservative, on 15 March 2002. ‘Ariel Sharon has a split personality. He wants to be both Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain. His unilateral concessions, his unwillingness to treat Zion’s fight for survival as the war it is and the weakness he exhibits to a remorseless foe have his country on the edge of extinction.’ Yes, that’s right — Israel, in 2002, according to this typical American neocon, was on the edge of extinction! Fortunately, according to Feder, there was a Churchill in Israel: ‘Bibi [Netanyahu] waits in the wings....’ Whether or not Sharon or Netanyahu are Churchill, Yasser Arafat and any enemy of the state of Israel is Hitler — on that all neocons can agree.

The obsession of the neocons with Israel’s regional enemy Saddam Hussein has a Churchill connection, too. On 16 March 2003, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Churchill’s grandson and namesake, Winston S. Churchill, entitled ‘My Grandfather Invented Iraq: And He Has Lessons for Us Today’. He wrote, ‘It was my grandfather, Winston Churchill, who invented Iraq and laid the foundation for much of the modern Middle East.’ This is not an accomplishment of which to be proud, one might think. Churchill went on to draw the conventional comparison between the threat of Saddam and the threat of Hitler: ‘Had the allies held firm and shown the same resolve to uphold the rule of law among nations that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair are demonstrating today, there is little doubt that World War II, with all its horrors, could have been avoided.’ Churchill’s grandson then compared the threat of Saddam’s supposed weapons of mass destruction with the Soviet atomic bomb: ‘As leader of the opposition in the British Parliament [in the 1950s] Churchill was gravely alarmed at the prospect of the Soviet Union acquiring atomic, and eventually nuclear, weapons of its own.’ If the world refused to follow those Churchillian leaders, Bush and Blair, then ‘a marriage of convenience would be consummated between the terrorist forces of al-Qa’eda and the arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities which Saddam possesses’.

Citing Churchill to support Bush’s war to rid Iraq of alleged weapons of mass destruction was particularly ironic in light of Churchill’s own record with respect to WMDs in Iraq. As colonial secretary in 1919, Churchill wanted to use gas against the ‘unco-operative Arabs’ in Iraq. He explained, in terms that Saddam might have used to justify his gassing of Iraqi Kurds, ‘I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.’

It is now clear that Saddam possessed no ‘arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities’ and the US government has reluctantly admitted that there are no credible links, prewar or postwar, between Saddam’s regime and al-Qa’eda. Even their harshest critics, therefore, must acknowledge that in one respect the neocons have lived up to the words of Winston Churchill: ‘In wartime ...truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.’

Michael Lind is the Whitehead Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington, D.C., and author of Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics.



Winston Churchill's Secret Poison Gas Memo

[stamp] PRIME MINISTER'S PERSONAL MINUTE

[stamp, pen] Serial No. D. 217/4

[Seal of Prime Minister]

10 Downing Street, Whitehall [gothic script]

GENERAL ISMAY FOR C.O.S. COMMITTEE [underlined]

1. I want you to think very seriously over this question of poison gas. I would not use it unless it could be shown either that (a) it was life or death for us, or (b) that it would shorten the war by a year.

2. It is absurd to consider morality on this topic when everybody used it in the last war without a word of complaint from the moralists or the Church. On the other hand, in the last war bombing of open cities was regarded as forbidden. Now everybody does it as a matter of course. It is simply a question of fashion changing as she does between long and short skirts for women.

3. I want a cold-blooded calculation made as to how it would pay us to use poison gas, by which I mean principally mustard. We will want to gain more ground in Normandy so as not to be cooped up in a small area. We could probably deliver 20 tons to their 1 and for the sake of the 1 they would bring their bomber aircraft into the area against our superiority, thus paying a heavy toll.

4. Why have the Germans not used it? Not certainly out of moral scruples or affection for us. They have not used it because it does not pay them. The greatest temptation ever offered to them was the beaches of Normandy. This they could have drenched with gas greatly to the hindrance of the troops. That they thought about it is certain and that they prepared against our use of gas is also certain. But they only reason they have not used it against us is that they fear the retaliation. What is to their detriment is to our advantage.

5. Although one sees how unpleasant it is to receive poison gas attacks, from which nearly everyone recovers, it is useless to protest that an equal amount of H. E. will not inflict greater casualties and sufferings on troops and civilians. One really must not be bound within silly conventions of the mind whether they be those that ruled in the last war or those in reverse which rule in this.

6. If the bombardment of London became a serious nuisance and great rockets with far-reaching and devastating effect fell on many centres of Government and labour, I should be prepared to do [underline] anything [stop underline] that would hit the enemy in a murderous place. I may certainly have to ask you to support me in using poison gas. We could drench the cities of the Ruhr and many other cities in Germany in such a way that most of the population would be requiring constant medical attention. We could stop all work at the flying bomb starting points. I do not see why we should have the disadvantages of being the gentleman while they have all the advantages of being the cad. There are times when this may be so but not now.

7. I quite agree that it may be several weeks or even months before I shall ask you to drench Germany with poison gas, and if we do it, let us do it one hundred per cent. In the meanwhile, I want the matter studied in cold blood by sensible people and not by that particular set of psalm-singing uniformed defeatists which one runs across now here now there. Pray address yourself to this. It is a big thing and can only be discarded for a big reason. I shall of course have to square Uncle Joe and the President; but you need not bring this into your calculations at the present time. Just try to find out what it is like on its merits.

[signed] Winston Churchill [initials]

6.7.44 [underlined]

Source: photographic copy of original 4 page memo, in Guenther W. Gellermann, "Der Krieg, der nicht stattfand", Bernard & Graefe Verlag, 1986, pp. 249-251


Bust of Winston Churchill in Jerusalem, in honour of his support to zionism, despite him calling Jews "Hebrew bloodsuckers" and stating that they brought anti-semitism upon themselves because of their unwillingness to integrate in British society and their financial dealings.

Meer over Churchill op dit weblog, en op Znet: History Forgave Churchill Why Not Blair And Bush?

9 December 2012

Why is the birth rate in Israel's Ethiopian community declining?

Women say that while waiting in transit camps in Ethiopia they were coaxed into agreeing to injections of long-acting birth control drugs.

Haaretz | By Talila Nesher | 09.12.2012 | NEDERLANDS


Members of the Falashmura community in Ethiopia last month, waiting to immigrate to Israel. Photo by Anshel Pfeffer

Women who immigrated from Ethiopia eight years ago say they were told they would not be allowed into Israel unless they agreed to be injected with the long-acting birth control drug Depo Provera, according to an investigative report aired yesterday on the Israel Educational Television program "Vacuum."

The women say that while waiting in transit camps in Ethiopia prior to immigration they were placed in family planning workshops where they were coaxed into agreeing to the injection - a charge denied by both the Joint Distribution Committe, which ran the clinics, and the Health Ministry.

"We said we won't have the shot. They told us, if you don't you won't go to Israel And also you won't be allowed into the Joint (American Joint Distribution Committee) office, you won't get aid or medical care. We were afraid... We didn't have a choice. Without them and their aid we couldn't leave there. So we accepted the injection. It was only with their permission that we were allowed to leave," recounted Emawayish, who immigrated from Ethiopia eight years ago. She was one of 35 women, whose stories were recorded by Sebba Reuven, that relate how they were coaxed and threatened into agreeing to receive the injectable birth control drug.

The birth rate among Israel's Ethiopian immigrant population has dropped nearly 20 percent in 10 years.

According to the report, the women were given the Depo Provera injections in the family planning workshops in transit camps, a practice that continued once they reached Israel. The women who were interviewed for the investigation reported that they were told at the transit camps that having many children would make their lives more difficult in Ethiopia and in Israel, and even that they would be barred from coming to Israel if they refused.

Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/why-is-the-birth-rate-in-israel-s-ethiopian-community-declining.premium-1.483494



Israel's treatment of Ethiopians 'racist'

The National | By Jonathan Cook | 06.01.2010

NAZARETH, Israel // Health officials in Israel are subjecting many female Ethiopian immigrants to a controversial long-term birth control drug in what Israeli women's groups allege is a racist policy to reduce the number of black babies. The contraceptive, known as Depo Provera, which is given by injection every three months, is considered by many doctors as a birth control method of last resort because of problems treating its side effects.

However, according to a report published last week, use of the contraceptive by Israeli doctors has risen threefold over the past few years. Figures show that 57 per cent of Depo Provera users in Israel are Ethiopian, even though the community accounts for less than two per cent of the total population. About 90,000 Ethiopians have been brought to Israel under the Law of Return since the 1980s, but their Jewishness has subsequently been questioned by some rabbis and is doubted by many ordinary Israelis.

Ethiopians are reported to face widespread discrimination in jobs, housing and education and it recently emerged that their blood donations were routinely discarded. "This is about reducing the number of births in a community that is black and mostly poor," said Hedva Eyal, the author of the report by Woman to Woman, a feminist organisation based in Haifa, in northern Israel. "The unspoken policy is that only children who are white and Ashkenazi are wanted in Israel," she said, referring to the term for European Jews who founded Israel and continue to dominate its institutions.

Women's groups were alerted to the widespread use of Depo Provera in the Ethiopian community in 2008 when Rachel Mangoli, who runs a day care centre for 120 Ethiopian children in Bnei Braq, a suburb of Tel Aviv, observed that she had received only one new child in the previous three years. "I started to think about how strange the situation was after I had to send back donated baby clothes because there was no one in the community to give them to," she said.

She approached a local health clinic serving the 55 Ethiopian families in Bnei Braq and was told by the clinic manager that they had been instructed to administer Depo Provera injections to the women of child-bearing age, though he refused to say who had issued the order. Ms Mangoli, who interviewed the women, said: "They had not been told about alternative forms of contraception or about the side effects or given medical follow-ups." The women complained of a wide range of side effects associated with the drug, including headaches, abdominal pain, fatigue, nausea, loss of libido and general burning sensations.

Read more: http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/israels-treatment-of-ethiopians-racist