Hotel Terminus

Haditha: het ontbrekende woord is 'oorlogsmisdaad'

2012-01-25T12:39:00.000+01:00

In 2005 vermoordde de Amerikaanse marinierscommandant Frank Wuterich met het bevel 'eerst schieten dan vragen' 24 ongewapende Irakezen, waaronder vrouwen, kinderen en bejaarden, als wraak voor het sneuvelen van een collega. Wuterich gaat op drie maanden gevangenis na vrijuit, lezen we vandaag in onze kranten. Hij mag ook in het leger blijven, maar gedegradeerd tot soldaat. Zijn zeven handlangers gingen al eerder vrijuit.

Het ontbrekende woord is: oorlogsmisdaad.

Sergeant Frank Wuterich en zijn advocaat Neil Puckett blij.

Het opzettelijk doden van burgers is volgens het Handvest van de VN, de Conventie van Geneve en de Haagse Akkoorden een oorlogsmisdaad. De details in de zaak zijn schokkend. Vanaf het begin werd er gelogen over de toedracht van de slachting. Uit foto's van de soldaten zelf, en uit een video van een Iraakse student journalistiek zou blijken dat gedode Irakezen niet bij een militaire actie betrokken waren, noch weerstand hadden geboden. De Amerikaanse pers noemde de zaak in 2006, na het schandaal over de Amerikaanse Abu Ghraib gevangenis, vrijwel unaniem de grootste Amerikaanse misdaad in de geschiedenis van de oorlog tegen Irak, en vergeleek het met het bloedbad in My Lai.
Tegelijkertijd sprak men over een zorgvuldig uitgewerkt plan van al-Qaida om het Amerikaanse leger te beschadigen.

Er is veel aandacht van de pers geweest voor de slachting, ook in Nederland, een half jaar nadien, toen de Amerikaanse pers erover begon te schrijven. Maar net als bij de aandacht voor Abu Ghraib, bedekte de zaak talloze andere eenzelfde gevallen van Amerikaanse marteling en slachtingen in Irak. Dat er wel eens oorlogsmisdaden worden gepleegd in een oorlog begrijpt iedere Nederlander wel. Maar niet dat het plegen van zulke misdaden gewoon een kenmerk is van oorlog, door wie dan ook gevoerd. Het sprookje over onze oorlogen dat door de commerciële massamedia zorgvuldig in stand wordt gehouden is dat onze soldaten immer vechten tegen een gevaarlijke bewapende Vijand op een precieze, hoogtechnologische en zelfs beschaafde manier, waarbij burgerslachtoffers zo veel mogelijk worden vermeden. En wanneer het niet zo blijkt, noemen we dat een incident, uitgevoerd door een paar rotte appels. Maar de werkelijkheid op het slagveld is een andere: het is een totale chaos zonder ethische of morele grenzen waarbij doodsangst, woede, haat, racisme en sadisme de boventoon voeren.

Maar dat mag niemand in Nederland weten, en zeker niet wanneer het gaat om een door onze regering gesteunde oorlog. Daarom lezen we vanmorgen in onze kranten niet dat het 'incident' in Haditha een vreselijke oorlogsmisdaad is geweest die de VS weigert te bestraffen.

De NOS publiceert een kort berichtje over het 'incident' waarin elke context ontbreekt. Alsof de "slachting" (dat weer wel) een soort natuurramp betrof. "Commandant Frank Wuterich heeft bekend dat hij nalatig is geweest."

Nieuws.nl publiceert een bericht van het persbureau Novum/AP, dat ik op dit weblog meermalen noem vanwegen hun anti-islam en pro-Israël propaganda. Deze keer is het ook tenenkrommend: het noemt de oorlogsmisdaad wat zelfs de NOS een "slachting" noemt "plichtsverzuim". De vraag is natuurlijk welke plicht er eigenlijk verzuimd is.

Sp!ts, die dezelfde agenda als Novum hanteert, spant ook hier weer de kroon met haar disinformatie. Het stelt dat Wuterich "betrokken was bij de dood van 24 Iraakse burgers in Haditha" - niet dat hij de bevelen had gegeven, en tevens eigenhandig negen ongewapende burgers heeft vermoord.

Het ANP bericht op Nu.nl dat de oorlogsmisdaad een nalatigheid betrof. "Daarmee is de slepende rechtszaak in de VS over Haditha afgerond." Hetzelfde bericht in de Volkskrant.

Ook de Telegraaf meent dat de commandant "betrokken was bij de dood van 24 Iraakse burgers". "De dood van", alsof de Itakezen zomaar ter plekke dood neervielen, en Wuterich iets met dat fenomeen te maken zou hebben gehad. Maar net als de Gelderlander doet de krant het veel beter dan bovenstaande media: het spreekt van een massamoord, en noemt zelfs de term oorlogsmisdaden - die door Wuterich ontkend worden. Zelfs de overlevenden en familieleden mogen hun woordje doen, en een arts en de advocaat van de familieleden, die een civiele procedure gaan starten. En is er sprake van enige context.

De context dat onze regering deze vuile oorlog, inclusief de Amerikaanse en Britse misdaden, heeft gesteund, zonder VN-mandaat, lezen we in geen enkel bericht terug. Foto's van de slachting zijn ook nergens geplaatst. Bij deze:

TRANSLATE

Into shards of fucking dust

2012-01-24T08:58:00.001+01:00

John Pilger | 19.01.2012 | NEDERLANDS

The world war on democracy

Lisette Talate died the other day. I remember a wiry, fiercely intelligent woman who masked her grief with a determination that was a presence. She was the embodiment of people’s resistance to the war on democracy. I first glimpsed her in a 1950s Colonial Office film about the Chagos islanders, a tiny creole nation living midway between Africa and Asia in the Indian Ocean. The camera panned across thriving villages, a church, a school, a hospital, set in a phenomenon of natural beauty and peace. Lisette remembers the producer saying to her and her teenage friends, "Keep smiling girls!"

Sitting in her kitchen in Mauritius many years later, she said, "I didn’t have to be told to smile. I was a happy child, because my roots were deep in the islands, my paradise. My great-grandmother was born there; I made six children there. That’s why they couldn’t legally throw us out of our own homes; they had to terrify us into leaving or force us out. At first, they tried to starve us. The food ships stopped arriving [then] they spread rumors we would be bombed, then they turned on our dogs."

In the early 1960s, the Labor government of Harold Wilson secretly agreed to a demand from Washington that the Chagos archipelago, a British colony, be "swept" and "sanitized" of its 2,500 inhabitants so that a military base could be built on the principal island, Diego Garcia. "They knew we were inseparable from our pets," said Lisette, "When the American soldiers arrived to build the base, they backed their big trucks against the brick shed where we prepared the coconuts; hundreds of our dogs had been rounded up and imprisoned there. Then they gassed them through tubes from the trucks’ exhausts. You could hear them crying."

Lisette and her family and hundreds of islanders were forced on to a rusting steamer bound for Mauritius, a distance of 2,500 miles. They were made to sleep in the hold on a cargo of fertilizer: bird shit. The weather was rough; everyone was ill; two women miscarried. Dumped on the docks at Port Louis, Lisette’s youngest children, Jollice, and Regis, died within a week of each other. "They died of sadness," she said. "They had heard all the talk and seen the horror of what had happened to the dogs. They knew they were leaving their home forever. The doctor in Mauritius said he could not treat sadness."

This act of mass kidnapping was carried out in high secrecy. In one official file, under the heading, "Maintaining the fiction," the Foreign Office legal adviser exhorts his colleagues to cover their actions by "re-classifying" the population as "floating" and to "make up the rules as we go along." Article 7 of the statute of the International Criminal Court says the "deportation or forcible transfer of population" is a crime against humanity. That Britain had committed such a crime — in exchange for a $14 million discount off an American Polaris nuclear submarine — was not on the agenda of a group of British "defense" correspondents flown to the Chagos by the Ministry of Defense when the US base was completed. "There is nothing in our files," said a ministry official, "about inhabitants or an evacuation."

Today, Diego Garcia is crucial to America’s and Britain’s war on democracy. The heaviest bombing of Iraq and Afghanistan was launched from its vast airstrips, beyond which the islanders’ abandoned cemetery and church stand like archaeological ruins. The terraced garden where Lisette laughed for the camera is now a fortress housing the "bunker-busting" bombs carried by bat-shaped B-2 aircraft to targets in two continents; an attack on Iran will start here. As if to complete the emblem of rampant, criminal power, the CIA added a Guantánamo-style prison for its "rendition" victims and called it Camp Justice.

What was done to Lisette’s paradise has an urgent and universal meaning, for it represents the violent, ruthless nature of a whole system behind its democratic façade, and the scale of our own indoctrination to its messianic assumptions, described by Harold Pinter as a "brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis." Longer and bloodier than any war since 1945, waged with demonic weapons and a gangsterism dressed as economic policy and sometimes known as globalization, the war on democracy is unmentionable in western elite circles. As Pinter wrote, "it never happened even while it was happening." Last July, American historian William Blum published his "updated summary of the record of US foreign policy." Since the Second World War, the US has:

Attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments, most of them democratically-elected.
Attempted to suppress a populist or national movement in 20 countries.
Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries.
Dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries.
Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.

In total, the United States has carried out one or more of these actions in 69 countries. In almost all cases, Britain has been a collaborator. The "enemy" changes in name – from communism to Islamism — but mostly it is the rise of democracy independent of western power or a society occupying strategically useful territory, deemed expendable, like the Chagos Islands.

The sheer scale of suffering, let alone criminality, is little known in the west, despite the presence of the world’s most advanced communications, nominally freest journalism, and most admired academy. That the most numerous victims of terrorism – western terrorism – are Muslims is unsayable, if it is known. That half a million Iraqi infants died in the 1990s as a result of the embargo imposed by Britain and America is of no interest. That extreme jihadism, which led to 9/11, was nurtured as a weapon of western policy ("Operation Cyclone") is known to specialists but otherwise suppressed.

While popular culture in Britain and America immerses the Second World War in an ethical bath for the victors, the holocausts arising from Anglo-American dominance of resource-rich regions are consigned to oblivion. Under the Indonesian tyrant Suharto, anointed "our man" by Thatcher, more than a million people were slaughtered. Described by the CIA as "the worst mass murder of the second half of the 20th century," the estimate does not include a third of the population of East Timor who were starved or murdered with western connivance, British fighter-bombers, and machine guns.

These true stories are told in declassified files in the Public Record Office, yet represent an entire dimension of politics and the exercise of power excluded from public consideration. This has been achieved by a regime of un-coercive information control, from the evangelical mantra of consumer advertising to sound-bites on BBC news and now the ephemera of social media.

It is as if writers as watchdogs are extinct, or in thrall to a sociopathic zeitgeist, convinced they are too clever to be duped. Witness the stampede of sycophants eager to deify Christopher Hitchens, a war lover who longed to be allowed to justify the crimes of rapacious power. "For almost the first time in two centuries," wrote Terry Eagleton, "there is no eminent British poet, playwright, or novelist prepared to question the foundations of the western way of life." No Orwell warns that we do not need to live in a totalitarian society to be corrupted by totalitarianism. No Shelley speaks for the poor, no Blake proffers a vision, no Wilde reminds us that "disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man’s original virtue." And grievously no Pinter rages at the war machine, as in American Football:

Hallelujah.
Praise the Lord for all good things …
We blew their balls into shards of dust,
Into shards of fucking dust...

Into shards of fucking dust go all the lives blown there by Barack Obama, the Hopey Changey of western violence. Whenever one of Obama’s drones wipes out an entire family in a faraway tribal region of Pakistan, or Somalia, or Yemen, the American controllers in front of their computer-game screens type in "Bugsplat." Obama likes drones and has joked about them with journalists. One of his first actions as president was to order a wave of Predator drone attacks on Pakistan that killed 74 people. He has since killed thousands, mostly civilians; drones fire Hellfire missiles that suck the air out of the lungs of children and leave body parts festooned across scrubland.

Remember the tear-stained headlines when Brand Obama was elected: "momentous, spine-tingling": the Guardian. "The American future," wrote Simon Schama, "is all vision, numinous, unformed, light-headed …" The San Francisco Chronicle‘s columnist saw a spiritual "lightworker [who can] usher in a new way of being on the planet." Beyond the drivel, as the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg had predicted, a military coup was taking place in Washington, and Obama was their man. Having seduced the antiwar movement into virtual silence, he has given America’s corrupt military officer class unprecedented powers of state and engagement. These include the prospect of wars in Africa and opportunities for provocations against China, America’s largest creditor and new "enemy" in Asia. Under Obama, the old source of official paranoia Russia, has been encircled with ballistic missiles and the Russian opposition infiltrated. Military and CIA assassination teams have been assigned to 120 countries; long planned attacks on Syria and Iran beckon a world war. Israel, the exemplar of US violence and lawlessness by proxy, has just received its annual pocket money of $3bn together with Obama’s permission to steal more Palestinian land.

Obama’s most "historic" achievement is to bring the war on democracy home to America. On New Year’s Eve, he signed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a law that grants the Pentagon the legal right to kidnap both foreigners and US citizens and indefinitely detain, interrogate and torture, or even kill them. They need only "associate" with those "belligerent" to the United States. There will be no protection of law, no trial, no legal representation. This is the first explicit legislation to abolish habeas corpus (the right to due process of law) and effectively repeal the Bill of Rights of 1789.

On 5 January, in an extraordinary speech at the Pentagon, Obama said the military would not only be ready to "secure territory and populations" overseas but to fight in the "homeland" and provide "support to the civil authorities." In other words, US troops will be deployed on the streets of American cities when the inevitable civil unrest takes hold.

America is now a land of epidemic poverty and barbaric prisons: the consequence of a "market" extremism which, under Obama, has prompted the transfer of $14 trillion in public money to criminal enterprises in Wall Street. The victims are mostly young jobless, homeless, incarcerated African-Americans, betrayed by the first black president. The historic corollary of a perpetual war state, this is not fascism, not yet, but neither is it democracy in any recognizable form, regardless of the placebo politics that will consume the news until November. The presidential campaign, says the Washington Post, will "feature a clash of philosophies rooted in distinctly different views of the economy." This is patently false. The circumscribed task of journalism on both sides of the Atlantic is to create the pretence of political choice where there is none.

The same shadow is across Britain and much of Europe where social democracy, an article of faith two generations ago, has fallen to the central bank dictators. In David Cameron’s "big society," the theft of 84bn pounds in jobs and services even exceeds the amount of tax "legally" avoided by piratical corporations. Blame rests not with the far right, but a cowardly liberal political culture that has allowed this to happen, which, wrote Hywel Williams in the wake of the attacks on 9/11, "can itself be a form of self righteous fanaticism." Tony Blair is one such fanatic. In its managerial indifference to the freedoms that it claims to hold dear, bourgeois Blairite Britain has created a surveillance state with 3,000 new criminal offences and laws: more than for the whole of the previous century. The police clearly believe they have an impunity to kill. At the demand of the CIA, cases like that of Binyam Mohamed, an innocent British resident tortured and then held for five years in Guantanamo Bay, will be dealt with in secret courts in Britain "in order to protect the intelligence agencies" – the torturers.

This invisible state allowed the Blair government to fight the Chagos islanders as they rose from their despair in exile and demanded justice in the streets of Port Louis and London. "Only when you take direct action, face to face, even break laws, are you ever noticed," said Lisette. "And the smaller you are, the greater your example to others." Such an eloquent answer to those who still ask, "What can I do?"

I last saw Lisette’s tiny figure standing in driving rain alongside her comrades outside the Houses of Parliament. What struck me was the enduring courage of their resistance. It is this refusal to give up that rotten power fears, above all, knowing it is the seed beneath the snow.

Documentary by John Pilger: Stealing a nation (part 1/4)

Stealing A Nation reveals the extraordinary story of the secret expulsion of the entire population of the Chagos islands in the Indian Ocean by successive British governments, so that the principal island, Diego Garcia, could be handed to the United States as a major military base. It is from this base that American aircraft have attacked Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This is a shocking, almost incredible story. A government calling itself civilized tricked and expelled its most vulnerable citizens so that it could give their homeland to a foreign power...ministers and their officials then mounted a campaign of deception all the way up to the prime minister." John Pilger

Full playlist

Palestijnse kinderen en de Israëlische rechtsstaat: "je bent een hond, de zoon van een hoer"

2012-01-23T13:01:00.000+01:00

'Cel 36' is voor een Palestijns kind vergelijkbaar met de martelkamer van het Ministerie van Liefde 'Room 101' uit de roman Nineteen Eighty-Four van George Orwell.

Most are accused of throwing stones at soldiers or settlers; some, of flinging molotov cocktails; a few, of more serious offences such as links to militant organisations or using weapons. They are also pumped for information about the activities and sympathies of their classmates, relatives and neighbours.

At the beginning, nearly all deny the accusations. Most say they are threatened; some report physical violence. Verbal abuse – "You're a dog, a son of a whore" – is common. Many are exhausted from sleep deprivation. Day after day they are fettered to the chair, then returned to solitary confinement. In the end, many sign confessions that they later say were coerced.

The Palestinian children – alone and bewildered – in Israel's Al Jalame jail, The Guardian, 22 January 2012

The Israeli army arrests a young boy who they claim was throwing stones. Nabi Saleh 2011.

Hundreds of Palestinian minors were arrested for weeks and even months by Israel in the last five years. Those children – including 34 of them under the age of 14 – were tried in military courts. Only one was acquitted. A new report by human rights NGO B’tselem shed light on one of the occupation’s most horrifying aspects (+972, 2011)

7 children numbered amongst 8 arrested by Israeli forces in Silwan today. One child arrested, Yahya al-Rishaq, is not even 6 years of age. 7 June, 2011

Israeli soldiers (“border police” unit) abducts Mahmoud Al Abbasi (10). East-Jerusalem, January 21 2011.

Palestijnse kinderen worden in grote getale door het Israëlische leger ontvoerd, gearresteerd, mishandeld, vernederd, krijgen eenzame opsluiting, moeten een schuldbekentenis ondertekenen die ze niet kunnen lezen (Hebreeuws) en worden berecht door een militaire rechtbank. De meesten op verdenking van het gooien van stenen. Vele mensenrechtenorganisaties publiceren daarover regelmatig verslagen en onderzoeksrapporten die in feite keer op keer aantonen dat Israël een racistische schurkenstaat is. In Nederland worden die amper vermeld.

En toch wordt er door kabinet en media breed beweerd dat Israël een "democratische" en "goed functionerende" "rechtsstaat" is, en lezen we daarover meningen waarvan je bijna gaat denken dat we met een sekte te maken hebben, die mijlenver van de werkelijkheid afstaat, en haar geconstrueerde en gefantaseerde werkelijkheden monotoon blijft opdreunen.

Het Reformatorisch Dagblad meent in een hoofdredactioneel commentaar: "In Israël functioneert de rechtsstaat naar behoren". Waarom? Alleen omdat er een "discussie" in de Israëlische media ontstond na het in brand steken van moskeeën door joodse extremisten. "Die discussie geeft aan hoe een rechtsstaat behoort te functioneren." Dat er in dat soort "discussies" ook menigmaal 'dood aan de Arabieren' (Israëlische Palestijnen) en andere racistische praat wordt geroepen, tot in de Knesset toe, bestaat natuurlijk niet in de werkelijkheid van deze gereformeerde filosemieten. In plaats van te schrijven over hoe Israël het recht misbruikt en verkracht om Palestijnen te onderdrukken, gebruikt de redactie het artikel eigenlijk om kenbaar te maken hoezeer de Palestijnen niet deugen, en het eigenlijk toch best wel allemaal hun eigen schuld is.

Esther Voet van de zionistische lobbygroep CIDI 'bewijst' in het Nieuw Israelitisch Weekblad (ook een zionistisch propaganda-orgaan) dat Israël een rechtsstaat is omdat het de voormalige president Moshe Katsav heeft veroordeeld voor verkrachting. Dus ook hier weer niet over hoe de rechtsstaat met (Israëlische) Palestijnen omgaat:

"In tegenstelling tot alle (plaatsvervangende) schaamte voel ik enige trots. Ik ken weinig landen waarin het rechtssysteem zo sterk is ... Het recht is in Israël stevig geworteld, het bewijs is geleverd: voor de rechtspraak is iedere Israëli gelijk, zelfs hij die het hoogste ambt bekleedt. Vrouwe Justitia is hier werkelijk blind. Hulde."

Zie hier de bekende bewijsvoering van het CIDI: 'het is waar omdat wij het zeggen'. Het CIDI is alleen geïnteresseerd in rapporten van hulpverlenings- en mensenrechtenorganisaties wanneer joden ergens slachtoffer van zijn.

Frans Weisglas, oud-buitenlandwoordvoerder VVD en oud-voorzitter van de Tweede Kamer beweert met betrekking tot de omwentelingen in de Arabische wereld: "Israel moet daadwerkelijke steun geven aan het ontwikkelen van de democratie en rechtstaat in die landen." Dat kan niet anders dan een vlaag van verstandsverbijstering zijn, want even daarvoor schrijft hij over de Israëlische steun aan het Mubarak-regime. Tenminste, sinds de val van Mubarak heet dat geen steun meer, maar "...het Egyptische regime werd door Israel, net als door veel andere landen, op de koop toe genomen." Ja, zo lust ik er nog wel een.
Aan het einde van zijn betoog bepleit hij dat de Verenigde Naties en de Europese Unie, inclusief Nederland, de bezetting van de West Bank van Israël moet gaan overnemen. Een ideetje dat Maxime Verhagen (CDA) en zelfs Harry van Bommel (SP) al eerder hadden aangehaald met betrekking tot de blokkade van Gaza. Volksvertegenwoordigers of gevaarlijke idioten, zegt u het maar.

Gelukkig wordt er niet van de Palestijnen geëist dat ze naast "Israël als Joodse staat" (opgericht door seculieren als seculiere staat) "erkennen", ook nog eens 'Israël als democratische rechtsstaat" moeten erkennen. Het "erkennen" van hun joodse bezetter, die henzelf weigert te erkennen, is al absurd genoeg. En dan noem ik nog niet eens de grove schendingen van de mensenrechten en de economische en fysieke oorlogsvoering tegen de Palestijnen in Gaza, door de "goed functionerende rechtsstaat", enkel en alleen omdat de burgers in Gaza de kans kregen om op een democratische manier hun eigen leiders te kiezen.

TRANSLATE

De SGP en "de kwaadaardige trekken van de islam"

2012-01-23T09:38:00.003+01:00

Verschil?

In haar stanpunten 'Tien speerpunten van de SGP' schrijft de SGP:

"Als ergens blijkt dat de islam kwaadaardige trekken heeft,
is het wel in het Midden-Oosten."

Stelt u zich eens voor, een partij in ons parlement, om het even welke partij, die in haar standpunten zet: "Als ergens blijkt dat het jodendom kwaadaardige trekken heeft, is het wel in Israël en de VS." Die partij zou direct, met unanieme instemming, verboden worden, want over joden of het jodendom mag je dat niet zeggen. Het geeft o.a. aan dat onze volksvertegenwoordiging in wezen een antisemitische organisatie is, omdat het meent dat joden een aparte status hebben en apart behandeld moeten worden.

Bittere ironie is dat de oprichter van de SGP, de antisemitische predikant Gerrit Hendrik Kersten, het daadwerkelijk over joden gezegd zou kunnen hebben. Hij zag de nazi's als een instrument van god: "Zie toch niet op dien Duitscher. Hij is slechts een roede in Gods hand." Het werd Kersten na de oorlog door de Zuiveringscommissie verboden om in het parlement zitting te nemen vanwege zijn collaboratie met en het verraden van joden aan de nazi's. De SGP was daar echter niet van onder de indruk en plaatste hem in 1946 wederom op de lijst.

Maar dat was toen, zult u denken, en de SGP steunt zulke abjecte standpunten niet meer. Dan vergist u zich. In 2007 verdedigden de SGP-jongeren de dominee in Ds. Kersten niet antisemitisch, een verdediging die geheel gebaseerd is op een mening (in de trant van: 'het is niet waar'), en de feiten onbesproken laat.
Meer informatie → SGP-oprichter: God strafte Joden met Tweede Wereldoorlog

"Kwaadaardige trekken"

Mogen of kunnen we van een religie zeggen dat het "kwaadaardige trekken" vertoont, zoals de nazi's over het jodendom deden? Nee, want een religie is geen mens. Het gebruik van de term "trek" in deze wijst op een karaktertrek, aard, aanleg, een specifiek kenmerk van een individu. Afgezien daarvan suggereert de SGP, doordat het aan een religie een menselijke eigenschap toedicht, dat alle moslims, 1,57 miljard mensen, "kwaadaardige trekken" vertonen.

"Het moderne antisemitisme in Europa is het filosemitisme. De jood is heilig verklaard. We zien een liefde voor joden, louter en alleen omdat ze joden zijn. Voor de filosemiet blijft een jood de ander, de buitenstaander, net als voor de antisemiet. Als we het over Israel hebben dan hebben we het in feite over Europa, over het Europese onvermogen om met de ander te leven, over de continuïteit van het Europese antisemitisme dat zich nu tegen de Arabier richt, daarbij aangemoedigd door de zionistische propaganda. Opvallend is dat nu de joden in Europa worden geaccepteerd, zij grotendeels uit Europa zijn verdwenen. Het is als het ware alsof de wandelende jood eindelijk naar huis is gegaan, een gedachte die je zowel bij christenen als zionisten aantreft. Het Europees racisme heeft geleid tot de geboorte van Israel en het filosemitisme komt tevens voort uit het Europees besef gefaald te hebben in de geschiedenis. Maar waar het in feite allemaal om draait is niet de liefde voor de jood, maar de liefde voor het slachtoffer. Die geeft de filosemiet, dus niet het slachtoffer, maar de filosemiet zelf het gevoel een goed mens te zijn. Daarom koesteren de Europeanen het slachtoffer, die vervult een onmisbare functie in hun leven. En hier zie ik een relatie met het diep in het westerse bewustzijn verankerde icoon van Christus, de jood aan het kruis. Hij lijdt voor de christen, hij verlost hem van het kwaad. De jood Christus is het slachtoffer bij uitstek dat in de christelijke cultuur als maatstaf functioneert voor de eigen goedheid. En zodra er geen enkele twijfel meer bestaat over de eigen voortreffelijkheid stopt men met nadenken. Daarom ben ik als filmmaker veel meer geïnteresseerd in de dader dan in het slachtoffer. Het slachtoffer geeft de mens een gemakkelijk antwoord op de moeilijke vraag: wie ben ik? De dader daarentegen dwingt ons permanent na te denken over wie we werkelijk zijn." (De joods-Israelische filmmaker Eyal Sivan in gesprek met journalist Stan van Houcke, 2009)

De SGP heeft haar oude sentimenten een nieuw gezicht gegeven. Filosemitisme is slechts de andere kant van antisemitisme, op dezelfde munt.

TRANSLATE

Meer 'feiten' van Missing Peace

2012-01-23T07:48:00.005+01:00

Reclame voor de Israëlische prolife-organisatie Efrat
op de websites van Israëlische kranten.

Volgens de radicale kolonist en aannemer Yochanan Visser van het propagandabureautje Missing Peace zijn auteur Ilse van Heusden en de krant Trouw "klassiek" antisemitisch. Van Heusden zou een uitspraak uit 2002 van minister van Sociale Zaken Shlomo Benizri (Shas-partij, en "homo's veroorzaken aardbevingen") opzettelijk "misbruikt" hebben om aan te tonen dat de staat Israël van haar (joodse) burgers verlangt zo veel mogelijk babies te produceren. Visser ontstak in verontwaardiging, omdat zij zou liegen. Hoe merkwaardig.

Allereerst maakt Israël er geen geheim van dat er een "demografisch gevaar" en zelfs "demografische bom" bestaat, vooraleerst met betrekking tot de "Israëlische Arabieren". Israëlische politici uiten hier al jarenlang hun zorgen over. Bijvoorbeeld, de toenmalige minister van Financiën Benjamin Netanyahu wond er op de Herzliya Conferentie in 2003 geen doekjes om:

"We have a demographic problem, but it lies not with the Palestinian Arabs, but with the Israeli Arabs. ...if Israel's Arabs become well integrated and reach 35-45 percent of the population, there will no longer be a Jewish state ... this will also undermine the [state's] democratic fabric." (Haaretz)

Lees ook → Israel's right to be racist

Van Heusden citeerde Benizri echter in de juiste context. In 2002 werd het mandaat van de Israëlische Raad voor Demografie vernieuwd met aanbevelingen om de joodse meerderheid in Israël te verzekeren. Het kwam daarbij hoofdzakelijk neer op het stimuleren van joodse vrouwen om meer babies te produceren. Haaretz berichtte daarover:

The Israel Council for Demography is to meet today, after five years of inactivity, with the aim of drawing up guidelines on how formulate a policy that will preserve Israel's Jewish character. The council has been charged with finding ways to encourage Jewish households to have more children, using government grants, housing benefits and other incentives. It will also examine issues such as abortion and mixed marriages between Israelis and foreign workers.

Van Heusden in Trouw:

De staat promoot het krijgen van kinderen, onder meer met een flinke kinderbijslag. In 2002 lichtte de toenmalige minister van sociale zaken Shlomo Benizri de maatregelen toe: "De angst om Israëls unieke karakter te verliezen noodzaakt ons om actie te ondernemen, zodat we geen minderheid worden in ons eigen land."

Maar Visser beweert dat Benizri het uitsluitend had over illegale immigranten en gastarbeiders. Wat Benizri overigens voor genoemde immigranten en gastarbeiders heeft gedaan is hen kinderbijslag verbieden.

Missing Peace goochelt met getallen

Ook beweert Visser dat "een gemiddeld kind" in Israël 35 euro per maand aan kinderbijslag ontvangt. Dat kan kloppen, maar hij zegt er niet bij dat hoe meer kinderen er zijn hoe meer kinderbijslag het gezin ontvangt. Zo ontvangt een gezin met 6 kinderen 2566 NIS, ongeveer 87 euro per kind per maand. Een conclusie is dus dat de staat het krijgen van meer kinderen financieel beloont. Voor gezinnen met 1 tot 3 kinderen is de kinderbijslag sinds 1990 vrijwel gelijk gebleven.

Ook beweert Visser dat een Nederlands kind (geboren voor 1995) 120 euro per maand ontvangt. In werkelijkheid is dat, afhankelijk van de leeftijd, van 63 tot 89 euro per maand (bij 1 kind).

Visser schrijft:

"In fact, since 2002, the Israeli government has considerably reduced the level of child allowances. This reduction rose to as high as 70% for a family with 8 children."

In werkelijkheid, zo bericht Human Rights Watch in 2002, is de gemiddelde bezuiniging een korting van 4% geweest. De korting voor gezinnen met ouders die niet in het leger gediend hebben (sic) bedroeg echter 24%, en dat trof natuurlijk de Israëlische Palestijnen, die niet in dienst hoeven. Ook de orthodoxe joden, die hun leven lang bijstand trekken (mannen moeten de hele dag de Thora bestuderen en hun vrouwen mogen van hen niet werken) gaan ook niet in dienst, en werden dus gekort, maar deze hebben nog wel recht op allerlei vergoedingen voor onderwijs - en de Israëlische Palestijnen niet. Gelijke rechten?

Visser beweert:

Through this type of advanced prenatal care, Israel has managed over the last 35 years to reduce the infant mortality rate by almost 70% (24.6 per 1000 infants in 1973 compared to 3.8 per 1000 in 2008).

Volgens het OECD (2011) is de kindersterfte in Israël 3,8 op 1000. Maar, wat Visser natuurlijk weer verzwijgt, staat dat getal volgens Wikipedia voor joden op 3,1 en voor Israëlische Palestijnen 7,7 op de 1000 kinderen: tweeëneenhalf keer zo hoog!

Meer leugens:

A similar figure was reached among the Arab population in Gaza and the West Bank (now the lowest in the entire Middle East: 11 per 1000 compared to 58 in 1968 and 61 in Iraq nowadays).

Yochanan Visser kletst maar raak. De kindersterfte in Gaza is niet 11/1000 maar 17,12/1000, en in de West Bank 14,92/1000. De kindersterfte in Irak is momenteel 41,68/1000. Logisch dat dat aantal beduidend lager zal zijn, aangezien er onder Iraakse kinderen onder de 5 jaar tijdens de jaren van sancties een genocide heeft plaatsgevonen (half miljoen slachtoffertjes).

Ook is de kindersterfte in Gaza en de West Bank (gemiddeld 16/1000) helemaal niet het laagste in het gehele Midden-Oosten. Libanon (15.85), Syrië (15.62), Oman (15.47), Qatar (12.05), Emiraten (11.94), Bahrein (10.43) en Koeweit (8.07) zitten daar nog onder.

Vermaak voor de kinderen in de nederzetting Efrat, woonplaats van Yochanan Visser.

Babies zijn "toekomstige soldaten"

De Israëlische oplossing van het "demografische probleem", namelijk het produceren van meer babies, bestaat volgens Yochanan Visser niet. Maar neem bijvoorbeeld de Israëlische Organization for Saving Jewish Babies (alleen joodse babies dus) genaamd 'Efrat'. Die voert campagne tegen abortus (ook in het mandaat van de genoemde Raad voor Demografie), maar niet omdat abortus moreel/religieus verwerpelijk zou zijn, maar vooraleerst als "oorlog" tegen de "Arabieren" om "de Joodse staat" joods te houden.

Zodoende is het nog vreemder dat Visser Van Heusden verwijt dat zij stelt dat zwanger zijn in Israël een "militaire operatie" is: "she chose to write a libelous article where care for an unborn child in Israel was deliberately presented as a military operation". Terwijl de grote organisatie Efrat zonder gene stelt dat we de door hen geredde babies ook moeten zien als "toekomstige soldaten" (en nieuwe joodse moeders):

"Every year the Efrat organization saves the lives of over 1,500 future soldiers
and over 1,500 future Jewish mothers!"

Yochanan Visser, die o.a. beweert dat de Palestijnen heel tevreden zijn met de Israëlische bezetting, zou Yochanan Visser niet zijn wanneer hij zijn aanval op Ilse van Heusden afsluit met een verwijzing naar eugenetica (rasverbetering). Zijn 'informatie' en 'feiten' zijn zó onbetrouwbaar en uit de duim gezogen, dat zelfs Elise Friedmann van de zionistische lobby-organisatie CIDI vindt dat hij "serieuze onderzoekers in discrediet brengt". Het zegt echter alles over onze media, waaronder de Volkskrant, die hem een podium geven.

Meer informatie → Save the Jews: don’t have an abortion (Nathalie Rothschild for Spiked magazine)

TRANSLATE

Een jaar bezetting in beeld: 2002

2012-01-20T00:49:00.000+01:00

Netanyahu in Nederland. De rode loper uit voor oorlogsmisdaden, mensenrechtenschendingen, bloedbaden, bezetting.

Bethlehem

Iman Jamjoun touches the face of her 14-year-old daughter Nizin before her burial in the West Bank town of Hebron, Monday, July 29, 2002. Armed Jewish settlers clashed with rock-throwing Palestinians as they returned home Sunday from the funeral of an Israeli soldier, shooting dead the girl and wounding several others. Nizin was standing on the balcony of her home when she was fatally shot in the head.

Shot In The Heart! Palestinian hospital personnel stand next to the body of Jihad Fareq, 8, who was killed during clashes with Israeli soldiers, at a hospital in the West Bank town of Nablus Monday Nov. 25, 2002. Hundreds of Palestinian youths defied an Israeli military curfew Monday and threw stones at soldiers who opened fire, killing Fareq and wounding seven people.

Palestinian hospital staff show the body of Briton Iain Hook, director of the United Nations reconstruction project of Jenin refugee camp, at a hospital in the West Bank town of Jenin Friday Nov, 22, 2002. The U.N. official was hit by Israeli fire when the soldiers were shooting trying to disperse stone-throwing Palestinian youths. Israeli military delayed the arrival of paramedics by an hour and by the time the Israeli ambulance arrived, Hook no longer had a pulse, the officials said.

A Palestinian boy kneels to take cover while an Israeli tank fires after an Israeli army bulldozer demolished a Palestinian police post on a road near the crossing of the Jewish Netzarim settlement in southern Gaza, Friday June 21, 2002. He was killed shortly after this photo was snapped.

Palestinians, working in their family field, take cover while an Israeli tank fires near the crossing of the Jewish Netzarim settlement in southern Gaza, Friday June 21, 2002. A few seconds later, one of the boys was killed by the Israeli fire.

The cousin of Abed al Samad Shamalakh, who was killed in the morning during Israeli gunfire as he was working in his family field, cries with his brother (L) with the blood of the boy on his T-shirt after he carried him to a hospital from the field in Gaza Strip June 21, 2002.

The mother of Abdel Samad Shamalakh, looks in disbelief at her son's face during his funeral in Gaza City, Friday June 21, 2002. The boy, who was working in his family's field, was shot and killed when an Israeli tank opened fire while a bulldozer tore down a Palestinian police post near the Jewish settlement of Netzarim. This is the same boy from the above picture. Notice up above he was ducking and no threat to them yet they shot him anyway!

An Israeli armoured personnel carrier takes position in front of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem November 22, 2002. The Israeli occupation army launched a massive invasion into the holy city early Friday morning.

Palestinian children lining up to get water. Palestinians don't have enough water to justify having running water while Israelis have enough for large swimming pools.

Armed Israeli settlers walk past Star of David graffiti on a Palestinian house at the site where Palestinian gunmen ambushed Israeli troops recently, adjacent to what is now the location of a makeshift Israeli settlement expansion outpost, in the Palestinian town of Hebron, Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2002.

Homeless Refugee Cat! Palestinian Abeer Attalah, 10, carries her cat as she walks in front of her destroyed family house, demolished by Israeli occupation forces earlier in the day, in the outskirts of Balata refugee camp, adjacent to the northern Palestinian city of Nablus Sunday Nov. 17, 2002. The Israeli army destroyed two houses where 27 Palestinians were made homeless by the demolitions.

A view of Yanun, a Palestinian village in the West Bank, the day the families living here left under ongoing pressure from nearby Israeli settlers, Friday, Oct. 18, 2002. Once home to 25 families, the last of the Palestinians here said they were fleeing after four years of worsening attacks from Israeli settlers, who have erected outposts on hilltops overlooking Yanun.

New Refugees! Eight-year-old Palestinian boy Naseem Sobih, center, cries, as does his younger brother Hazim, 4, while other family members grieve queitly, as they crowd into their car, and vacate their village of Yanun, under ongoing pressure from nearby Israeli settlers, in the West Bank, Friday, Oct. 18, 2002.

A Palestinian youth tries to salvage some tomatoes as others watch an Israeli tank disappear after it destroyed a market stand when imposing a curfew in the West Bank town of Jenin Sunday Oct. 6, 2002.

Aim To Kill ! Palestinian hospital workers show the body of Palestinian Amar Hashem, 15, killed by a shot to the head while throwing stones on Israeli tanks in the Al Ein refugee camp in the northern West Bank city of Nablus Saturday Oct. 5, 2002.

Crying Over Ruin! Palestinian Hajar Abu Laws, 55, cries in front of her family's destroyed house in the Khan Younis refugee camp August 21, 2002. Israeli tanks and helicopters raided the camp and destroyed several buildings.

A Palestinian girl walks with a window frame she has scavenged near the rubble of a five-story apartment building destroyed by Israel army explosives early Wednesday Aug. 21, 2002 in the Khan Yunis refugee camp in the southern Gaza Strip. Israeli troops blew up the five-story and several houses nearby killing a 24-year-old Palestinian inside one of the houses.

Death of a Grandchild. Shot in the forehead. Palestinian Salmah Ze'rob, grandmother of 15-year-old Ayman Ze'rob, faints when she sees his face at a morgue in Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis refugee camp in the Southern Gaza Strip, August 20,2002. Ayman was shot and killed by Israeli troops guarding the Jewish settlement of Morag, south of the camp.

MY BOY ! A Palestinian gestures at Israeli soldiers after they arrested his son in the West Bank city of Hebron August 17, 2002. Israeli soldiers combed the streets of the West Bank city of Hebron rounding up at least 100 people and injuring several more with stun grenades.

Mourners carry the body of slain Palestinian boy Ayman Fares for his funeral in Khan Younis, August 16, 2002. The five-year-old Palestinian boy was killed by fire from an Israeli tank advancing to the edge of the Khan Younis refugee camp Thursday.

Relatives of slain Palestinian five-year-old Palestinian boy Ayman Fares mourn as his body is carried out of his home for the funeral in the Gaza Strip town of Khan Younis, August 16, 2002.

Palestinian children release balloons white, black, green and red, the colors of the Palestinian flag, during a demonstration for the release of Palestinian prisoners and for peace in the West Bank town of Bethlehem Tuesday Aug. 13, 2002.

Palestinians have requested International Peacekeeping forces on their land as a buffer between them and Israel -- this was rejected by Israel.

Goodbye My Baby! Tahsin Ahmad kisses his dead nine year-old daughter Asmaa at Naser Hospital in Khan Younis Friday, Aug. 2, 2002. Israeli soldiers guarding a Jewish settlement in the central Gaza Strip shot dead the Palestinian girl while at home in the refugee camp.

Did Not Survive ! Palestinian children look at 6-year-old girl Neven Abu Slmuah during her funeral in the Gaza strip on August 1, 2002. Neven was wounded by Israeli soldiers during a raid on Gaza on July 21, 2002.

David vs. Goliath? A Palestinian boy uses a slingshot against Israeli tanks during a raid in the north Gaza Strip, July 29, 2002.

Ten-year-old Khamees Hawayta lies in Shefah hospital, July 24, 2002, after he was injured during an Israeli missile strike in Gaza Strip. Like many of the 145 injured in the attack early Tuesday morning, the Palestinian boy was asleep when the one-tonne bomb targeted the house of a senior militant next door, blasting it to bits and destroying nearby houses in the crowded district. "The blast threw a cabinet on top of me and rubble on top of my little brother Subhi," said Khamees. "Subhi cried to me, 'I can't get out. Help me!'

WHO'S LEFT? Ten year-old Iman al Hewete (L) and her brother, 13 year-old Tareq, at the Shefah hospital in the Gaza Strip July 24, 2002, after they were injured during an Israeli missile strike a day earlier. The children's mother and two brothers were killed in the attack.

The hand and arm of a dead baby pokes out from the rubble of a building in Gaza, July 24, 2002. Debate raged in Israel on Wednesday over the wisdom of killing one of one man at the price of the lives of 14 Palestinians, nine of whom were sleeping children, and international condemnation of the devastating Gaza air raid. A day after the killing of Salah Shehada, it emerged that the U.S. made F-16 warplane that attacked his house used an American one-ton precision "smart bomb".

CHILD'S BODY Palestinian rescue workers pull the body of a child out of rubble on July 24, 2002, after the air attack on a block of buildings in Gaza by Israel.

Palestinian medical workers show the body of Alaa Matar, 10, to one of her relatives, Anwar Matar, second right, at Shifa hospital in Gaza City, Wednesday, July 24, 2002.

The body of three-year-old Mohamed al Hewete lies next the body of his mother Mona in Gaza hospital, after they were killed in an overnight Israeli missile strike in the Gaza Strip July 23, 2002.

Palestinian rescuers hold the body of a dead baby, found in the rubble of destroyed houses in Gaza City, Tuesday July 23, 2002. An Israeli warplane blew up the house of a leading Hamas militant in the Gaza Strip early Tuesday, killing 14 civilians while sleeping, nine of which were children..

Palestinians remove the dead body of a Palestinian woman from her house after it was hit by fire from an Israeli warplane during an attack on Gaza City July 22, 2002.

TWO-YEAR-OLD NOOR Zakaria Hindi carries the body of his 2-year-old niece Noor, at the hospital in the Deir Balah refugee camp in Gaza Strip Saturday July 6, 2002. The baby and her 44-year-old mother Randa Hindi were killed Saturday morning while riding in a taxi in the Gaza Strip by Israeli tank fire.

A Palestinian boy throws stones at an Israeli tank patrolling the Deheishe refugee camp, near Bethlehem July 5, 2002.

A Palestinian girl searches for a balloon to buy in a downtown outdoors market in Bethlehem during a daytime lifting of the Israeli curfew Thursday July 4, 2002.

A group of Palestinian boys in the Deheishe refugee camp in Bethlehem throw stones at an Israeli Mirkava tank July 2, 2002.

BEHIND BARS ! Palestinian children look out of their house window after Israeli army imposed a curfew in Bettunia near the West Bank City of Ramallah June 21, 2002.

SALVAGE THE BEAR ! A Palestinian girl carries out a stuffed bear from her family's damaged house near a metal workshop in Jabaliya refugee camp in the northern Gaza Strip, Thursday June 20, 2002. Israeli helicopters fired rockets at the shop injuring 13, two seriously.

Israeli Due Process ! An Israeli soldier (L) takes a swing at an arrested and blindfolded Palestinian man (second from left) in the Adduha area of Bethlehem June 20, 2002. The Israeli army reentered Bethlehem just before dawn searching houses and arresting several men and imposing curfew on the town.

YOUNG REFUGEE Palestinian children kiss and take a last look at the body of Hussein al-Matwi, 9-year-old, who was killed by Israeli army forces as he stepped outside his home, a thatched hut, in the Nuseirat refugee camp in Gaza Strip Wednesday, June 12, 2002.

HUSSEIN IS DEAD! The impoverished refugees sister and grandfather of Hussein al-Matwi, 9-year-old, who was killed by Israeli troops, cry as his body brought to their thatched hut in the Nuseirat refugee camp in Gaza Strip, June 12, 2002.

A Palestinian man shows his sick baby to an Israeli soldier at the entrance to the Palestinian village of Al-Khader, north of Hebron, to allow them passage through the checkpoint Wednesday, June 12, 2002. (Reuters/Gil Cohen Magen) How can anyone hold up a parent with a sick child from getting to a hospital?

The body of Palestinian civilian Tareq el-Kharaz, 24, who was killed by stray Israeli gunfire, lies in a morgue in Nablus, Saturday, June 1, 2002. El-Kharaz, was among a group of men who defied the curfew and attended prayers at the mosque. An Israeli armored personnel carrier fired on them as they were leaving

An Israeli soldier aims his M-16 assault rifle towards Palestinians waiting to cross a military checkpoint near the West Bank town of Ramallah May 29, 2002.

An Israeli soldier stops a Palestinian child at a road block outside the West Bank town of Qalqiliya.

An Israeli Army jeep patrols along the barbed wire fence that Israel built to separate the northern outskirts of Jerusalem with the West Bank, near the Kalandia checkpoint Tuesday May 28, 2002.

WAITING TO CROSS An elderly Palestinian, waiting to be allowed to cross, sleeps next to the Kalandia checkpoint on the outskirts of the West Bank town of Ramallah, Tuesday May 28, 2002.

KILLING FIELDS ! Palestinian ambulance workers, lower right, prepare to retrieve the bodies of a Palestinian woman and her daughter as an Israeli tank and army jeeps look on in Al Bireij refugee camp, Gaza Strip, Saturday, May 25, 2002. Israeli troops shot and killed the Palestinian woman and her 14-year-old daughter, and also wounded another woman while all three were working in a farm field.

NO HOME ! A Palestinian boy sits on his family's belongings in the remains of their home destroyed by Israeli authorities in the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Beit Hanina Tuesday May 21, 2002.

A Palestinian woman holds her child in front of her house destroyed by Israeli soldiers after authorities claimed the house had no building permission, in East Jerusalem neighborhood of Beit Hanina Tuesday May 21, 2002.

Palestinian twins Abla, left, and Faten make drawings of their memories on the ruins of their home in the refugee camp in Jenin, on the West Bank, Saturday, May 4, 2002. The European Union said it deplored the fact that the United Nations had been forced to call off a fact-finding mission into Israel's assault on the Jenin refugee camp. Israel initially supported an international probe to clarify events in Jenin but later decided not to let in the U.N. mission, which U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan eventually canceled.

Palestinian boys take a last look and kiss 2-year-old Hoda Shalof, killed after Israeli tank shelled her home, during her funeral in Rafah refugee camp in south Gaza Strip Wednesday, May 1, 2002.

An Israeli soldier lights a smoke grenade in front of Palestinian demonstrators near the entrance of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem Wednesday, May 1, 2002.

A Palestinian demonstrator, atop a barricade, waves a flag as international peace activists look on while covering their faces against a cloud of tear gas, during a protest in Ramallah, Friday, April 26, 2002.

Palestinian university students provide volunteer labor cleaning the streets of rubble and dirt, left over from recent Israeli Army incursions, in the West Bank town of Ramallah, Thursday, April 25, 2002.

Palestinian students inspect the damage made by the Israeli army in the library room of a school after the withdrawal of the Israeli troops from the West Bank city of Nablus April 24, 2002. The school was used as headquarters by the Israeli army during its incursion into the city.

A Palestinin girl plays in the destroyed Jenin refugee camp April 21, 2002.

Doctors look at the bodies of three Palestinian children, who were killed in a car accident with an Israeli military jeep, at the Rafidya Hospital in the West Bank town of Nablus Saturday, April 20, 2002. Another child and the car's driver were injured in the accident in the village of Howara, near Nablus.

Palestinian photojournalist Nasser Shtayyeh weeps as he carries the body of his five day old baby daughter Dunya before her funeral in Nablus April 19, 2002. Shtayyeh, who works as a photographer with the Associated Press, said that Dunya was taken ill and died last night on the way to hospital after they waited three hours due to roadblocks for an ambulance to enter their home village of Salem.

Hospital workers prepare the body of a child for burial, outside a makeshift morgue in Nablus Thursday April 18, 2002. The bodies of over 70 Palestinians killed in Nablus during the Israeli incursion were being prepared for a mass burial.

A Palestinian girl searches for her family's belongings in the rubble of a damaged house in the destroyed Jenin refugee camp in the northern West Bank April 18, 2002.

A Palestinian covers body parts as others continue to search the rubble of a damaged house in the destroyed Jenin refugee camp in the northern West Bank April 18, 2002. Probably run over by a tank...

Palestinian Red Crescent volunteers cover the remains of a dead Palestinian woman killed in the Jenin refugee camp, Wednesday April 17, 2002. Palestinians pulled out more bodies Wednesday from the rubble in the camp, where the death toll remains unknown.

An Israeli soldier protects himself from the smell of death overwhelming the Jenin refugee camp Tuesday, April 16, 2002. Palestinians claim that hundreds of dead are buried in the rubble of the camp.

A foot sticks out from the rubble (L) of one of the homes destroyed by the Israeli Defense Forces in the Jenin refugee camp Tuesday, April 16, 2002. Palestinians claim that hundreds of dead are buried in the rubble of the camp.

Cats roam through the rubble of the Jenin refugee camp Tuesday, April 16, 2002.

An Israeli tank is seen near demolished homes in the Jenin refugee camp, where the fiercest fighting occurred, in the northern West Bank, Sunday, April 14, 2002.

Draped in black, a Palestinian mother weeps over the body of her burned son at the refugee camp in the West Bank city of Jenin on Saturday, April 13, 2002.

BURNED BOY The burned remains of a Palestinian boy lay amidst toys in a house destroyed by Israeli soldiers in the Jenin refugee camp Saturday, April 13, 2002.

Smoke billows over the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem following several explosions as Israeli forces continue to surround the compound.

The Israeli army erects a giant loudspeaker over the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem, April 13, 2002.

Wat heeft Netanyahu wat Zorreguieta niet heeft?

2012-01-19T23:16:00.000+01:00

In 2010 toerde Netanyahu door de bezette West Bank om bomen te planten: ""The message is clear – we are here and will remain here. We are planting and building; this is an inseparable part of the State of Israel."

Benjamin Netanyahu in Nederland. Dat blijkt geen probleem, want voor deze oorlogsmisdadiger en mensenrechtenschender wordt de rode loper uitgerold. Bij onze zogenoemde oppositie, die zich wel eens (maar steeds minder) kritisch over de misdaden van Israël uitlaat, is de stilte oorverdovend. Iedere Nederlandse politicus is voor vrede, voor mensenrechten en tegen oorlogsmisdaden. Behalve wanneer het Israël betreft, de "Joodse staat" die meer VN-resoluties tegen zich heeft dan alle andere landen ter wereld bij elkaar. Mijn vraag is: wat heeft Netanyahu wat Jorge Zorreguieta niet heeft?

Dictator Jorge Videla en Jorge Zorreguieta in 1979

Het politieke tumult over een eventueel officieel bezoek van Jorge Zorreguieta aan Nederland, om het huwelijk van Willem-Alexander en zijn dochter Máxima bij te wonen, was enorm. De man had namelijk mensenrechten geschonden. Hij was medeplichtig aan verdwijningen van/moord op critici van het Videla-regime. Zijn bezoek werd uiteindelijk verboden. In de nieuwsmedia verschenen uitgebreide biografieën. Over Netanyahu lezen we er niet een. En over wat Netanyahu voorstaat, wat de hele internationale gemeenschap officieel veroordeelt, tot aan het hoogste gerechtshof ter wereld toe, lezen we hoegenaamd ook niets.

Verwonderlijk is het niet dat Netanyahu de kritiek van de wereld op zijn nederzettingenbeleid luchtigjes van tafel veegt met "veel gedoe om niks". Met zoveel collaborateurs om zich heen zal hij zich gesterkt voelen.

RAMALLAH, October 31, 2011 (WAFA) – A group of Jewish settlers Monday stoned an elderly Palestinian lady (80) as she was picking olives in Mukhmas, a village southeast of Ramallah in the West Bank, according to local sources.

TRANSLATE

Raymond de Roon spoort Netanyahu aan meer nederzettingen te bouwen

2012-01-19T16:48:00.002+01:00

Schermafbeelding van Twitterbericht 19 januari 2012, opgemerkt door @occpal

Dutch lawmaker incites Israel to build more colonies, violate international law

Electronic Intifada | By Ali Abunimah | 19.01.2012 | NEDERLANDS

A Dutch lawmaker is calling on Israel to continue building Jewish-only colonies in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, including eastern Jerusalem, in violation of international law.

Raymond de Roon, a member of Geert Wilders’ extreme anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian Freedom Party – known by its Dutch initials PVV – tweeted: “Today I ask Netanyahu in parliament for Israel to continue building in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria as long as Palestinians hinder peace.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been visiting the Netherlands, cementing close relations with that country’s government which has emerged as one of the most anti-Palestinian in Europe.

The PVV, although not a member of the governing coalition, lends its support to the government through a formal agreement.

While officially, the Netherlands opposes Israel’s settlements, Foreign Minister Uri Rosenthal, and Deputy Prime Minister Maxime Verhagen have worked actively to strengthen the Dutch relationship with Israel, effectively shielding the latter from any accountability or consequences for its crimes.

During Netanyahu’s visit, Verhagen announced that the Netherlands planned to send an economic mission to Israel to deepen trade ties.

Colonization is war crime

Israel’s settlement construction in the occupied West Bank – what Israel calls “Judea and Samaria” – is universally condemned as illegal under international law.

→ Read further on Electronic Intifada

Nederzettingen "opzettelijk vandalisme"

2012-01-17T09:46:00.003+01:00

Doodgezwegen in onze zogenaamde "kwaliteitspers". Omdat het kritiek op Israël betreft.

Clegg hekelt nederzettingen Israël

LONDEN - Israël maakt zich schuldig aan 'opzettelijk vandalisme' door te volharden in het bouwen van nieuwe nederzettingen op de Westelijke Jordaanoever en in Oost-Jeruzalem. Dat heeft de Britse vicepremier Nick Clegg maandag gezegd.

Clegg deed zijn uitlatingen maandag op een gezamenlijke persconferentie met de Palestijnse president Mahmoud Abbas. Het bouwen van nederzettingen in gebieden die de Palestijnen als onderdeel van hun toekomstige staat zien ondermijnt het vredesproces in het Midden-Oosten, aldus Clegg. Premier David Cameron en minister van buitenlandse zaken William Hague hebben Israël eerder al bekritiseerd over zijn beleid aangaande de nederzettingen.

TRANSLATE

War Plan Iran: The US Finally Admits Its Criminal Bankruptcy

2012-01-12T09:13:00.000+01:00

"Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No."

Op 8 januari jl. stelde de Amerkaanse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Leo Panetta in het televisieprogramma Face the Nation (transcript) van CBS (en geciteerd door de New York Times) dat Iran geen atoomwapens probeert te maken. En onthult hij de ware reden achter de anti-Iran campagnes: "Maar we weten dat het nucleaire capaciteit probeert te ontwikkelen. En dat is wat ons bezighoudt."

Global Research | By Finian Cunningham | 09.01.2012 | NEDERLANDS

Officially, America is now bankrupt: financially, economically, politically – and morally. Its criminal aggression towards Iran is just one of many parts of a jigsaw that add up to a clear and grotesque picture of what the United States of America now represents in the 21st Century world.

The numbers and pictures for these constituent parts of this odious jigsaw puzzle are well known. But what has become glaringly clear is just how integrated the official image of the US now is. Bankrupt.

Terminally in debt, mass poverty at record levels, rampant militarism, draconian curbs on civil liberties, government by the rich for the rich, and lately the reactionary, debased cat-fight that passes for political debate among Republican contenders for the Presidency. Cringing is the sight of super wealthy career politicians throwing sand in each other’s eyes to scrabble up the pole for yet further personal accumulation of capital; disturbing is the easy way that psychopathic targeting of imagined enemies whether at home or abroad is worn like a badge of honour. It is a sign of how depraved the American political mind has become when would-be presidents can so openly talk of conducting foreign policy in terms of unquestioned international aggression.

Of course, this kind of political and moral bankruptcy is not just confined to those seeking office. It is the coin of those who are already in office.

In a report in the New York Times Monday we have the startling admissions that, taken together, show that the US government should be certified as criminal (if further proof were needed) [1].

First we have the top US military man confirming that long-averred war plans against Iran are indeed going ahead.

The NYT: “When asked on [CBS’s] Face the Nation about the how difficult it would be to take out Iran’s nuclear ability in a military strike, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: ‘Well, I would rather not discuss the degree of difficulty and in any way encourage them to read anything into that. But I will say that my responsibility is to encourage the right degree of planning, to understand the risks associated with any kind of military option, in some cases to position assets, to provide those options in a timely fashion. And all those activities are going on.’”

In other words, the US is preparing for war.

Ironically, in the above lengthy article about the imminent opening of Iran’s second uranium enrichment plant at Qom, located under a mountain and impregnable from attack, the New York Times buries General Dempsey’s admission deep within the folds of its paragraphs perhaps in a bid to make it impregnable from attack by sane readers. Granted, the bellicose talk from US Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama and his administration of all options on the table has become so routine that the editors at the NYT have probably become inured to criminal admissions and so don’t think them worth any higher prominence that a final paragraph.

But here is the second part of the equation that adds up to definite criminality.

In the same story, the New York Times quotes US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta making what should be a startling admission: that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons programme.

Panetta says: “Are they [Iran] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.”

That Panetta finally admits what many people around the world know to be true, including American intelligence agencies in at least two US National Intelligence Estimates in 2007 and 2010 – that is, that Iran is not attempting to develop a nuclear weapon, should be a front-page headline. Especially when taken together with General Dempsey’s disclosure that war plans are afoot. From its own admission, therefore, the US government is pushing the world into possibly a World War III scenario on the basis of a totally spurious claim that even its own top brass do not believe.

Reflecting the bankruptcy that has corroded the US political establishment is the way that the New York Times – America’s self-styled premier newspaper – glides over these nuggets of self-indictment as if they were worthless banalities.

So if Iran is not even trying to develop a nuclear weapon, as Panetta now admits, what then is the criminal US warmongering predicated on?

Unofficially, the real reason is imperialist rivalry with other powers (Russia and China in particular) in the energy-rich Persian Gulf and Central Asia regions, and the attempt to engineer “regime change” in Iran to one that is pliant with Washington’s geopolitical designs.

Officially, for what it is worth, it seems now that the US is not happy even with the mere suspicion that Iran maybe, just maybe, might one day capable of developing nuclear capability.

This is where facts can be helpful. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the legal right to develop nuclear capability for civilian purposes. This is what Iran has consistently said it is doing and what countless UN inspections of facilities over many years, including the new plant at Qom, have verified. The enrichment of uranium constitutes “nuclear capability” and is an essential part of harnessing nuclear energy for civilian energy. Iran should be congratulated for this achievement given years of gratuitous sanctions by the US its Western allies.

But the way the US government and its Western allies put it, Iran’s legitimate nuclear capability is made to sound like a diabolical threat.

Panetta again: “But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that’s what concerns us.”

There you have it. The United States can drop nuclear weapons on civilians, possess up to 10,000 nuclear warheads, supply its allies illegally with such weapons and continue to violate the purpose of the NPT by not disarming its nuclear arsenal – yet if a country uses the provisions of the NPT legitimately to pursue nuclear capability then it is reviled and made a target for an illegal war of aggression, most probably with nuclear weapons.

This is depravity-turned-foreign policy – emanating from supposedly the most democratic government in the world.

In that way, the unseemly Republican Party cat-fight between Romney et al is but a symptom of the chronically bankrupt body politic that is American government in the 21st Century.

Finian Cunningham is Global Research’s Middle East and East Africa correspondent cunninghamfinian@gmail.com

Notes
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/world/middleeast/iran-will-soon-move-uranium-work-underground-official-says.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2&pagewanted=all

Israël martelt en wij kijken weg

2012-01-08T22:45:00.002+01:00

Israëlische artsen medeplichtig aan martelen Palestijnen

JERUZALEM (ANP) - Israëlische artsen zijn medeplichtig aan martelingen van Palestijnse gevangenen door de Israëlische geheime dienst Shin Bet. Dat stellen twee mensenrechtenorganisaties in een donderdag gepresenteerd rapport.

Artsen documenteren verwondingen niet die Palestijnen tijdens verhoren hebben opgelopen, en doen geen aangifte bij de politie. Ook sturen artsen Palestijnen terug naar hun verhoor ook als zij eerder gewond zijn geraakt. Het rapport van het Openbaar Comité tegen Marteling in Israël (PCATI) en Artsen voor Mensenrechten is gebaseerd op meer dan 100 gevallen.

Shin Beth gebruikt volgens het rapport fysiek en psychologisch geweld en verboden verhoortechnieken. De Israëlische justitie zou geen belangstelling hebben voor het probleem. (ANP 03.11.2011)

Echt nieuws is het martelen van "de enige democratie in het Midden-Oosten" overigens niet, maar gewoon een beleid:

» The ISA interrogation regime: routine ill-treatment
» Israëlische mensenrechtenorganisatie B'Tselem over martelen
» Haaretz 2011: Still the same Shin Bet
» Middle East Monitor 2011: Shin Bet - An ingrained culture of torture and deceit
» Middle East Monitor 2010: Israeli Shin Bet electrocuted child prisoners to extract confessions
» Torture As Official Israeli Policy

De Israëlische martelpraktijk die onze politici bewust in stand wensen te houden:

» Dutch authorities let Israel get away with torture
» ‘Dutch authorities’ hielpen Ami Ayalon ontkomen

Schijnheilig wegkijken

» Video: Joel Voordewind (Christenunie) is tegen berechting van Israëlische folteraars. Dat is gezien Voordewind's beperkte wereldbeeld echter begrijpelijk, want voor hem is het (internationaal) recht ondergeschikt aan zijn filosemitisme. Voor Voordewind zijn de joden het Uitverkoren Volk die maar raak mogen martelen. Ook wanneer hun slachtoffers kinderen zijn die eerst in het gezicht worden geschopt en daarna stroomstoten worden toegediend.

Maar wanneer het bijvoorbeeld om Arabische, Iraanse of Chinese folteraars zou gaan, dan ontsteekt Voordewind in verontwaardiging en stelt hij daar met afschuw Kamervragen over. Over hoe dat toch mogelijk is, en waarom Nederland daar niets aan doet. Op dezelfde manier is hij actief voor fair trade producten in onze supermarkten. Uitgezonderd de producten die door joden, inclusief joodse terroristen (niet verassend "extremisten" genoemd), op van Palestijnen en Syriërs gestolen land worden geproduceerd. Want die zijn in zijn ogen wel "duurzaam" geproduceerd.

In de Nederlandse nieuwsmedia vallen vrijwel geen artikelen te vinden over Israël's martelpraktijken. Dat is niet verassend, omdat het de taak van onze "kwaliteitskranten" is om alleen over de officiële werkelijkheid te berichten, dus ook die van Israël. Een werkelijkheid die vaak rechtstreeks door Israëlische regering of leger wordt gedicteerd. Het is een netwerkje dat je met enige regelmaat in de Israëlische ambassade kunt vinden. Het feit dat Israël een militair martelregime heeft past daar natuurlijk niet in, en wordt daarom verzwegen. Het ANP-bericht hierover is een zeldzame uitzondering.

Ons racisme/etnicisme/religisme, etc. gaat diep. Er ontstond onlangs grote ophef over dat een 8-jarig joods meisje werd lastiggevallen door zogenoemde "ultra"-orthodoxe joden. Dat Palestijnse kinderen door alle denominaties joden al decennialang worden getreiterd en verwond wordt verzwegen. Simpelweg omdat de Israëli's, en dus Nederland, het leven van een Palestijn stukken minder waard achten dan die van een jood.

"Na de Tweede Wereldoorlog is het jodendom in de christelijke wereld vrijwel heilig verklaard en geen volk dat in die processie zo hard vooroploopt als de Nederlanders." Jan Blokker, Jan Blokker Jr. en Bas Blokker in Nederland in twaalf moorden.

TRANSLATE

Henk Bovekerk: Prototypical Fascism in Contemporary Dutch Politics

2012-01-07T08:33:00.003+01:00

Interesting bachelor thesis on why the PVV is a fascist party and its leader Geert Wilders is a fascist, by Tilburg University student Henk Bovekerk (photo not included in thesis).

“Ur-Fascism is still around us, sometimes in plainclothes. ... Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances –– every day, in every part of the world.”
Umberto Eco, Ur-Fascism (1995)

Introduction

“In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders and his Party for Freedom are the prototypes of contemporary fascism and as such they are nothing but the logical political consequence of a society which we are all responsible for. This contemporary fascism is once again the consequence of political parties that have renounced their own intellectual traditions, intellectuals who have cultivated a pleasure- seeking nihilism, universities not worthy of their description, the greed of the business world and a mass media which would rather be the people’s ventriloquist than a critical mirror. These are the corrupted elites who have cultivated the spiritual vacuum in which fascism can grow large again.”
Rob Riemen, The Eternal Return of Fascism (2010)

On the second morning of November 2010, all Dutch Ministers, Secretaries of State and Members of Parliament found a thin, blue booklet in their pigeon holes. The Eternal Return of Fascism, by Rob Riemen. Sixty-two pages, and generous margins –– so nothing to loose any sleep over. Or was it? According to this thin, blue booklet, MP Geert Wilders and his Party For Freedom are “the prototypes of contemporary fascism.” Slightly disturbing, indeed. A populist, perhaps. But a fascist? In The Hague? In 2010?

[read further]

VERTALEN

Buitenlandse Zaken voegt 'Palestijnse gebieden' bij 'Israël'

2012-01-06T21:31:00.001+01:00

Na het aantreden van minister Uri Rosenthal heeft het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken de reisinformatie over de "Palestijnse gebieden" verwijderd en aan de reisinformatie over Israël toegevoegd.

Hier kunt u zien dat de Palestijnse gebieden een jaar geleden nog een aparte vermelding kregen op de website van het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken. Terecht, want de Palestijnse gebieden liggen niet in Israël en horen niet bij Israël. We gaan Kosovo toch ook niet bij Servië zetten, nietwaar?

De actie betreft natuurlijk een legitimering van een bezetting die, officieel door de hele wereld inclusief de VN-Veiligheidsraad herhaaldelijk is veroordeeld. Natuurlijk is dit niet zo'n grote ingreep als bijvoorbeeld het blokkeren van een EU-standpunt in deze zaak, maar goed, alle kleine beetjes helpen, moet Rosenthal gedacht hebben.

TRANSLATE

Crecas.nl, Naud van der Ven en Ruth de Jong uit het Druze dorp Peqi'in

2011-12-31T18:12:00.002+01:00

Een opmerkelijke reactie van Ruth de Jong, een van de vijf joodse bewoners van het Druzen-dorp Peqi'in in Israël, bij een column van Naud van der Ven op de website van "Joods Educatief Centrum" Crecas.

Boven de column staat vrij uitgebreide biografische informatie, maar Crecas meldt niet zeer relevante informatie: dat Naud van der Ven heeft geschreven voor de zionistische lobbygroep CIDI en dat hij lid is van de Onafhankelijke Joodse Denktank (OJD) is die als doel heeft "kennis en inzicht te delen met leden van de Vaste commissie voor Buitenlandse Zaken (VcBuZa) in de hoop dat dit contact Nederlandse politici ondersteunt in hun relatie met Israëlische collega’s." Een 'denktank' met meer leden die voor het niet-onafhankelijke CIDI hebben geschreven.

Een veelbetekenende omissie van het "onafhankelijk instituut" Crecas. Het verzwijgen van relevante feiten is echter de meest gebruikelijke methode van propagandavoering ter wereld. Maar we hebben Naud van der Ven niet nodig om aan te tonen dat Crecas pro-Israël propaganda voert, want hun lijst van zionistische propagandisten met hun 'columns' zegt genoeg. En dan heb ik het nog niet eens over de leugens die zij schrijven.

Op het persoonlijke weblog van Naud van der Ven kunnen we dan ook niet verassend lezen hoe hij bekende Israël-critici de grond in boort, en radicale zionisten bewondert. Van der Ven blijft Israël altijd op exemplarische CIDI-wijze, dus volgens de regels van hasbara, beschijven. Met een laagje vernis van fatsoen en beschaving - vóór mensenrechten, vóór democratie, tegen onderdrukking, etcetera - waarna het bekende 'maar...' volgt dat de misdaden van de schurkenstaat verzacht of vergoeilijkt.

Van der Ven is iemand die bijvoorbeeld de Nakba omschrijft als "een problematisch aspect" van het Zionisme (mét hoofdletter). Iemand die termen hanteert als "het Joodse territorium". Of, zoals in genoemde column, diefstal van Palestijns land "gesjoemel" noemt. En suggereert hij dat Israël een "erfzonde" heeft omdat de joodse terroristen ooit wel eens wat vervelende dingen heeft gedaan met Palestijnen - hoewel begrijpelijk. En geeft hij aan dat de bezetting van de West Bank en de Golan ook wel okee is "want dat was slechts de uitkomst van een oorlog die door anderen begonnen was".

Peqi'in (Buqei'a of Peki'in), in het noorden van Israël, ligt op 20 kilometer afstand van Acre (Akko of Akka) dat in 1948 op 3200 inwoners na etnisch werd gezuiverd door de joodse terroristen van de Haganah. Alsook de Palestijnse dorpen in de omgeving.
Foto: Palestine Remembered

Ruth de Jong reageert (alinea's voor de leesbaarheid door mij toegevoegd):

Beste mijnheer van der Ven,

Uiteindelijk vanuit Joodse hoek een genuanceerde reacties over onze erfzonde en het noemen van de naam der Nieuwe Historians! Daar ben ik blij mee. maar ik heb nog wel wat opmerkingen.

Allereerst; ik ben Ruth de Jong, gehuwd met Abel de Jong,ja inderdaad neefje van, en ook nog ja, van die film van onlangs, Shoa-overlever. Wij wonen het grootste deel van het jaar in Peqi' in, een gemengd Arabisch dorp in het Noorden van Galilea in de bergen. Er wonen voornamelijk Droezen die zich destijds - gedwongen- loyaal hebben verklaard aan de staat Israel en ee niet onaanzienlijk deel officieren, generaals, cipiers en bewakers aan de staat levert. Deze groep verdrijft langzaam de minderheden. Wat Joden betreft zijn er nog maar vijf, waar deze plaats juist bekend was om de constante Joodse bewoning sinds mensheugenis. We zijn nu nog maar met zijn vijven waar Abel en ik er 2 van zijn. Het zelfde lot treft de Christenen, waarvan het grootste deel overigens gedoopte Joden zijn. Zij zijn 20 jaar geleden al begonnen met 3 km. verderop een eigen dorp met kerken te bouwen. De Moslims, een wat sociaal lagere groep, die uitgeweken zijn in 1948 van het naburige grote dorp Sokhmata dat door ons werd ausradiert en met de bodem gelijkgemaakt zoals talloze dorpen bij ons in de omgeving. Deze Moslims dus, werden gepest, als zigeuners.

Wij wonen naast de grot van Rabbi Shimon bar Jochai, waar van over de hele wereld mensen komen dansen en binnen. Hier werd de kabbalah geopenbaard 2000 jaar geleden en opgetekend in de Zohar. Om die reden wonen wij hier, op bijzondere wijze hier naar toe geleid. Wij zijn echter niet vroom, we zijn gewoon onszelf (althans proberen we).

Nu over de erfzonde: nee niet vanwege het feit dat ik in dit dorp woon, ben ik plotseling veel genuanceerder gaan denken over onze staat en haar ontstaan.Dit was na het ondergaan van de eerste pogrom ja, u leest het goed, hier in Israel, in dit dorp.Ik moet zeggen dat ik een tijd in een shock heb geleefd;ik was zo loyaal naar de staat Israel, een soort levensverzekering voor mij. Het kon niet waar zijn .Het boek van Ilan Pappe deed daar nog een fors schepje bovenop. U kent het? Niet omdat ik alsmaar klachten hoorde in dit dorp; integendeel; de Droezen klagen juist dat de staat veel te slap optreedt tegen de Arabieren (terwijl ze dat zelf ook zijn); Naar hun mening moet Gaza ausradiert worden. Nee, daar krijgen mijn genuanceerde ideen geen houvast. Wel, overigens heel, voorzichtig bij de Christenen in het dorp.

Natuurlijk is het een psychologische wet dat mensen die net uit de hel zijn gekomen, zelf ook deels hel geworden zijn. Operatie Bezem hier in het Noorden(ja, zo heette die schrijnend eerlijk) maakt op gruwelijke manier korte metten met bevolking, hun huizen, hun bouwlandjes, daarmee de toestand van duizenden jaren - ons eigen erfgoed N.B,!- in een keer vernietigend. Ik weet hier van de mensen hoe zij aan hun aarde gebonden zijn. Iets daarvan kan je nog terug vinden in dorpjes in Friesland en Groningen. Hier is dat nog veel sterker.

Dan de families die uit elkaar gerukt zijn. Familie is alles hier, de basis van het bestaan.Vaak werden mannen geexecuteerd en vluchtten kinderen op blote voeten met de kudde ergens maar naar het Noorden waar ze dachten dat ze veilig waren. Ja, ik stop maar met het opsommen; massaexecuties etc. etc. Slapjes heeft de VN van wier toestemming wij onze legitimatie van bestaan ontvingen zoals U schrijft, geprotesteerd tegen deze praktijken, evenals ze dat een paar jaar niet of net zo deden toen wij in de kampen crepeerden.

Hier in het land werd een mythe gevormd, die met scheppen vol elke dag weer aan de kindertjes gevoerd werd. Het land was leeg, toen we hier kwamen, alles was dor en woestijn (wat een grote leugen, ja nu wordt alles dor, door verkeerd watergebruik en veranderend klimaat, er was hier overvloedig water) en die boze Arabieren willen ons de zee indrijven. Onderwijl bouwden wij op de ruines van de door ons verwoeste dorpen onze huizen en moesten ze over de grenzen maar zien hoe zij als opgejaagden het moesten rooien in tenten in een vreemd land.

Wij Joden, zeker de oudere generatie, kunnen niet vergeten wat er met ons in de kampen is gebeurd. Hele instituten wereldwijd zijn opgericht om de beschadigde overlevenden op te vangen. Duitsland, de grote dader, doet werkelijk het uiterste om een klein deel van de schade goed te maken met miljarden dollars. het gros van de oudjes hier leeft van de WUV. een uitkering voor oorlogsgetroffenen, bekostigd door de Duitsers, het houdt maar niet op. Ze blijven er nog steeds gevoelig voor, en alweer een orachtige synagoge wordt er gebouwd op hun kosten. Wat doen wij naar onze slachtoffers?

Natuurlijk slepen alle andere volken met een erfzonde, wat maken wij ons druk over het feit dat wij Hollanders slaven sleepten uit Afrika en de bevolking van een paar Ambonese eilanden doodden om de prijs van de kruiden laag te houden? Dat schijnen allemaal wetten te zijn. Dit land zelf is daar een illumineus voorbeeld van, al die overheersingen, doden, doden, en nog eens doden. Wij zijn het Joodse volk, trots om op onze Wijzen, Onze Thora, onze briljante wetenschappers, ga maar door, een volk dat je beschaafd zou kunnen noemen. We hebben alles in huis om te weten en te handelen dat zonder erkenning van eigen fouten, we in een spiraal van geweld terecht gekomen zijn, die uiteindelijk leidt tot een dead end. Letterlijk en figuurlijk.

Het slachtoffer vraagt om erkenning, aan beide zijden, Jood, Arabier, de dader moet naar zichzelf erkennen dat hij fout is geweest. Daarom is mijns inziens de enige oplossing: Teshuva, het proces van zelfreflectie om te kunnen terugkeren naar het punt waar we van God, dus van onzelf zijn afgekeerd. (Ik hoop nu dat U mij niet in de vrome hoek gaat plaatsen, pak het filosofische/psychologische stuk er maar van) We moeten zien en we moeten goedmaken. Als we niet weten hoe we dat moeten doen, laten we dan een voorbeeld aan Duitsland nemen.

Ik vind dat Israel alleen bestaanrecht kan hebben door ALLE burgers dezelfde rechten en plichten te geven, want daar wordt nu een ongelofelijk potje van gemaakt in dit land. Zo'n initiatief als die zangeres die samen met haar Arabische collega optreedt, dat vind ik geweldig. Maar als niet op grote schaal EN officieel SULHA (Arabische term voor goedmaken/vergeving/excuus vormgegeven in een gezamelijk maaltijd) wordt gedaan en de mythe van het lege land niet de nek wordt omgedraaid, door voorlichting (mensen weten in dit land niet, schokkend!) en er niet fors gedokt gaat worden, dan zal de ellende, zich versterkend, zonder eind zijn. Dus geen Joodse staat, maar Israel, het land van Joden en Arabieren en Droezen en Tsjerkessen etc.

Niks nieuws onder de zon, zo was het in bijbelse tijden al, kijk maar eens wat de opgravingen opleveren. Grieken, Romeinen, Hettieten, Foeniciers, Kanaanieten, Filistijnen, het woonde, met af een toe een meppartij, allemaal samen.

Shabbath shalom

Ruth de Jong uit Peqi' in-Israel

TRANSLATE

Volkskrant, NOS, spugen en propaganda

2011-12-27T18:50:00.004+01:00

Men neme een nieuwsfeit dat internationaal breed wordt verslagen. Maar dat wordt door een redactie herschreven, om een bij die redactie populaire groep mensen wat minder negatief in de kijker te zetten. En toch hebben we het hier over een Nederlandse "kwaliteitskrant", en geen Noord-Koreaanse krant.

1. Daar waar alle (dus ook de zeer rechtse) Israëlische kranten spreken van "extremists" en de internationale pers (voorzichtig) van "a radical fringe" houdt de Volkskrant het bij "ultra-orthodoxe joden". Ben u in de Volkskrant wel eens de term 'ultra-orthodoxe moslims' tegengekomen? Nee, ik ook niet. Want die kunnen volgens de Volkskrant (wel) alleen maar 'extremistisch' en 'radicaal' zijn.

2. Daar waar de hele internationationale pers schrijft over een "riot" met "violence" noemt de Volkskrant dit in de kop "tumult", alsof het om een oploopje ging.

3. Daar waar de hele internationale pers schrijft dat er met "stones and eggs" werd gegooid, meent de Volkskrant: "Er werd met eieren gegooid".

4. Journalisten werden door "ultra-orthodoxe" joden aangevallen, waarover o.a. deze nieuwsvideo verslag doet (op 0:16): "their car was stoned, a reporter injured and their equipment stolen". Elders werd een geluidsman van het Israëlische Channel 2 op de grond gegooid en de keel dichtgeknepen (aldus Haaretz). De Telegraph voegt toe: "Other journalists were also attacked and a police car stoned." Maar de Volkskrant-redactie woont blijkbaar op een andere planeet, en wordt ervan gemaakt: "nadat ze ... aanwezige journalisten hadden beledigd en hen hadden bedreigd". Gewoonlijk zijn nieuwsmedia uiterst kritisch wanneer collega's worden gemolesteerd. Maar op de Volkskrant-redactie blijkt de 'goede naam' van Israël zelfs nog belangrijker dan het eigen personeel.

5. Heel kort meldt de Volkskrant iets over de segregatiewens van de radicale joden, maar ook weer zeer verzachtend:
- "Een deel van de ultra-orthodoxe bevolking lijkt een strenge interpretatie te volgen van de scheiding tussen mannen en vrouwen".
Het "lijkt" dus zo, maar of het ook waar is weet de Volkskrant-redactie hoegenaamd niet.
- "Vrouwen en mannen reizen gescheiden op bepaalde buslijnen die het meest door ultra-orthodoxen worden gebruikt. Dat gebeurt echter al sinds het eind van de jaren tachtig."
De Volkskrant suggereert hiermee: '...dus waar hebben we het eigenlijk over'.

6. Veel internationale kranten en persagentschappen noemen ook het spugen van de extremistische joden, maar de Volkskrant verzwijgt het.

En natuurlijk hoeven we van de Volkskrant al helemaal niet te verwachten dat het vermeldt dat de bussen genoemd bij 5 nu ook in Nederland rijden.

Wanneer het negatief nieuws over radicaal-extremistische joden betreft doet echter niet één van onze nieuwsmedia het professioneel. Wanneer het Israël betreft volgen zij over het algemeen de Amerikaanse en Israëlische propaganda. En wanneer zij correspondenten ter plekke hebben, volgen díe weer de pro-Israël propaganda, die zij van het bezettingsleger aangereikt krijgen. Maar de Volkskrant excelleert vaak, omdat het bijna geen moeite meer doet om te veinzen dat het om professionele verslaggeving zou gaan.

Spugen, "een incident"

De NOS, bijvoorbeeld, is zeer bedreven in dat veinzen. Hier kunnen we lezen dat het spugen van extremistische joden op alles wat en iedereen die hen niet bevalt een "incident" is. Het is ook wel gebruikelijk in de Nederlandse media om de misdaden van Israël(-ische joden) "incidenten" te noemen, simpelweg omdat een historische context de propaganda zou ontkrachten, doordat het patronen zou blootleggen die het idee van "incidenten" zou ontkrachten.

In werkelijkheid spugen radicale joden al eeuwenlang. Het is een oude traditie om zich daarmee tegen Het Kwaad te beschermen. Ook lezen we door de jaren heen berichten over dat spugen, met name op christenen en andere goyim, zoals toeristen en journalisten. Maar dat wordt in Nederland verzwegen. het pas ook niet in het plaatje van "de enige democratie in het Midden-Oosten".

"Een heel klein groepje"

Israëlcorrespondente Ankie Rechess doet het in het geluidsfragment van de NOS helemaal volgens die regels van de hasbara. Ze meldt dan wel dat het vaker voorkomt (veinst te informeren), maar grijpt daarbij niet verder terug dan 1 week geleden. Ook legt zij op geruststellende toon uit dat het slechts om "een heel klein groepje" gaat, "want alles bij elkaar zijn het maar 7% van de Israëlische bevolking". Een heel klein groepje? 7% van de Israëlische bevolking betekent meer dan een half miljoen mensen!

Wanneer er in mijn straat een paar mensen wonen die zich zo misdragen, en politie en justitie hen de hand boven het hoofd houden zoals in Israël, dan hebben we hier een groot probleem. Of stelt u zich eens voor, in Nederland, met bijvoorbeeld 1 miljoen spugende SGP'ers die niet terugdeinzen voor intimidatie en geweld, en hun eigen wetten in het publieke domein opleggen.

Zeven procent?

Klopt die 7% wel? Op Wikipedia lezen we dat in 2009 "the ultra-Orthodox, or Haredim" al 8% van de bevolking bedroeg, na 5% in 1990. Ook staat er dat in 2028 verwacht wordt dat 20% van de bevolking ultra-orthodox zal zijn. En in 2007 berekende de historicus Yaakov Wise van de Universiteit van Manchester o.a. dat de Israëlische bevolking in 2020 uit 17% ultra-orthodoxe joden zou bestaan.

Haaretz: At the edge of the abyss, 2009

According to studies carried out by economist Eli Berman of the University of California, San Diego, Israel's ultra-Orthodox population doubles every 16 years.

According to researchers of the Israel 2028 project, headed by Eli Hurvitz and David Brodet, barring a significant change to the fertility rate in the Haredi community, the ultra-Orthodox will represent more than one-fifth of Israel's Jewish population in 2028.

A new forecast by Gilad Malach, a researcher at the Metzilah Center for Zionist, Jewish, Liberal and Humanist Thought, finds that if the annual rate of natural increase among Haredim stays at 5 percent, by 2050 they will comprise 37 percent of Israeli Jews - assuming that non-Haredim will want to remain here to support them. This is not science fiction. It's exactly what occurred in Jerusalem in the past generation.

Informatie waar Ankie Rechess zich niet aan stoort. Het NOS-journaal, dat desalniettemin nog steeds net doet alsof vrouwendiscriminatie en spugen iets nieuws is in de Israëlische samenleving, heeft het percentage al bijgesteld naar 10%.

Maar mogen we Ankie Rechess haar pro-Israël propaganda wel aanrekenen? Oordeelt u zelf.

De vraag is of de NOS, NOVA, ooit een Palestijnse mannelijke of vrouwelijke correspondent in dit gebied zou benoemen van wie de levenpartner bij een gewelddaad door een joods-Israeli vermoord is. Het antwoord is: nee. Daarom is de volgende vraag legitiem: waarom verdeelt de NOS, NOVA, de wereld in Joden en niet-Joden. Waarom kan Ankie Rechess wel haar pro-Israel propaganda blijven bedrijven via een zender die door belastingbetalers wordt gefinancierd, terwijl een Palestijn met of zonder een vermoorde partner nooit zal worden aangesteld als crrespondent, laat staan propaganda kan bedrijven voor de eigen zaak? Alleen in Nederland is een dergelijke dwaasheid mogelijk. En zelfs het stellen van deze vraag leidt tot grote consternatie bij de pro-Israel lobby.

Hoelang zal die vertoning met Ankie Rechess doorgaan? Waarom hanteren de NOS, NOVA geen journalistieke criteria?

TRANSLATE

"Een tweestatenoplossing gaat ten koste van Palestijnse rechten"

2011-12-02T10:54:00.001+01:00

dewereldmorgen.be | By Ludo De Brabander, Liza Noteris | 30.11.2011

Ali Abunimah is medeoprichter van de 'Electronic Intifada' en auteur van het boek: “One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse” waarin hij pleit voor één staat op het grondgebied van Israël en de Bezette Gebieden waarbinnen Joden en Palestijnen over gelijke rechten beschikken. Abunimah sprak op een colloquium van Palestina Solidariteit over dat onderwerp. Een interview.

U bent voorstander van de eenstatenoplossing, kan u uitleggen waarom?

Om te beginnen is het nu al zo dat één entiteit reeds de realiteit is. Ik geloof niet dat het op dit moment nog mogelijk is het land te scheiden. Het is niet alleen moeilijk haalbaar, maar bovendien ook onrechtvaardig. Dus we kunnen best op zoek gaan naar de juiste en rechtvaardige oplossing. En die oplossing moet aanvaardbaar zijn voor alle Palestijnen. Ze moeten immers allemaal beroep kunnen doen op hun rechten.

De tweestatenoplossing is in wezen een omruiling. Hiermee bedoel ik dat sommige Palestijnen rechten verwerven in ruil voor anderen die met lege handen achterblijven. Palestijnen uit de Westelijke Jordaanoever en Gaza krijgen een staat, maar de 20 procent Palestijnen in Israël moeten onder een discriminerend systeem blijven leven, namelijk een staat die zichzelf omschrijft als een 'joodse staat'. Israël spreekt niet alleen over een oplossing middels 'twee staten', maar over 'twee staten voor twee volkeren'.

Dat is een fundamenteel probleem. Avigdor Lieberman, de extreemrechtse Israëlische minister van Buitenlandse Zaken zei het volgende: “Als we een staat geven aan de Palestijnen op de Westelijke Jordaanoever en in Gaza, dat zullen we ons in een halve staat bevinden. Wat wij willen is een joodse staat. Welk belang hebben we om de gebieden af te staan als we daarna nog altijd met anderhalf miljoen Palestijnen zitten die onder ons leven.” Het is duidelijk dat volgens deze racistische logica de creatie van twee staten, de etnische zuivering van de Palestijnen uit Israël tot gevolg kan hebben.

Daarenboven verliezen de vluchtelingen hun recht op terugkeer. Het is een heel onrechtvaardig voorstel. Wel voordelig voor Israël, maar naar Israëls mening zelfs nog niet goed genoeg. Israël zou geen enkel politiek voorstel goedkeuren: niet één staat, niet twee, niet tien.

Wat is naar jouw mening een goede strategie om Israël onder druk te zetten?

Mensen in een machtspositie kunnen zich veel permitteren. Israël kan neen zeggen omdat het de macht daartoe heeft. Er is om die reden altijd weerstand geweest in Palestina en ook de BDS beweging (Boycot, Desinvesteringen en Sancties) kaart de machtspositie van Israël aan. De Palestijnse BDS-oproep erkent dat Israël niet akkoord zal gaan met een eerlijk resultaat zonder betekenisvolle druk.

Ik denk dat de BDS-beweging een heel duidelijke positie inneemt. Ze heeft drie objectieven, namelijk het einde van de bezetting, het stopzetten van discriminatie en racisme, en het respect voor de rechten van de vluchtelingen. Het gaat om een duidelijk programma dat alle Palestijnen samenbrengt en dat de machtsverhoudingen probeert te veranderen.

Het komt er op aan dat Israël niet langer in een positie verkeert die maakt dat het land zelf bepaalt wat mogelijk of realistisch is. Daarom wordt de terugkeer van Palestijnse vluchtelingen als onrealistisch bestempeld en moeten de Palestijnen zich pragmatisch opstellen.

Aan de andere kant denkt Israël er aan om nog eens 1 miljoen joden uit de hele wereld naar Israël en de Palestijnse Bezette Gebieden te doen migreren. Is dat dan pragmatisch? Het is dus blijkbaar geen probleem van ruimte, grond, huizen of grondstoffen. Wat men pragmatisch noemt is in wezen aanvaarden dat de Palestijnen geen joden zijn.

Hoe staan de Palestijnen tegenover de aanvraag tot lidmaatschap bij de Verenigde Naties?

Dit is een uitermate belangrijke vraag! Onder de Palestijnen is er veel kritiek. Velen willen niet erkend worden bij de Verenigde Naties uit angst voor het verlies van de rechten van andere Palestijnen. Er wordt nu veel over gediscussieerd en er zal veel tijd over gaan alvorens men een duidelijke richting kan uitgaan.

Maar mijns inziens kan men zich best distantiëren van de focus op het al dan niet vormen van een Palestijnse staat. Men moet de Palestijnse rechten met al zijn dimensies naar voren schuiven. Het discours van de staat is archaïsch en het vertegenwoordigt de jongere generatie niet. Zij willen geen staat met een hoofdstad en een vlag. Dat is niet hun drijfveer, omdat het niet over zelfbeschikking gaat.

De fout die wordt gemaakt, is denken dat een eigen Palestijnse staat automatisch tot zelfbeschikking leidt. Wel integendeel. In de huidige context druist de oprichting van een Palestijnse daartegen in, omdat zoals net uitgelegd, de rechten van de meerderheid van de Palestijnen niet worden gerespecteerd. De argumenten die naar voren worden geschoven, overtuigen de Palestijnse jongeren niet.

Wat is uw visie op het politieke landschap in Palestina?

Jonge actieve bloggers aanschouwen al die partijen met veel scepticisme. De Palestijnse politiek wordt vaak als zeer verdeeld voorgesteld. Dat is normaal in de politiek, alleen, in Palestina is het niet enkel interne divisie. Ook al was er bijvoorbeeld een verkiezingsoverwinning van Hamas in 2006, toch heeft het Westen beslist de partij die stemmen verzamelde aan de kant te plaatsen. Je kan dus niet op een normale manier aan politiek doen onder een bezetting. België had ook geen normale politiek onder de Duitse bezetting en Palestina kan dat blijkbaar ook niet. Die context mag niet vergeten worden.

Tegelijkertijd dienen politieke partijen en hun leiders een visie, een programma en een sterk leiderschap aan te bieden. Alsook moeten ze mensen mobiliseren en dat zie ik geen enkele partij doen in Palestina. Het is vreemd dat Hamas, dat ter plaatse een brede ondersteuning geniet, in de Europese Unie als terroristisch wordt aanzien.

Fatah’s al-Aqsa martelarenbrigade deed bussen ontploffen maar dat liet de Europese Unie klaarblijkelijk koud. Hamas heeft nochtans veel steun verworven na 2006 wegens hun militaire weerstand tegen Israël, zeker na de Gaza-crisis in 2009. Ik denk echter dat Hamas gefaald heeft in het bieden van een politieke visie en een duidelijke strategie.

De partij is naar mijn mening vooral aan het overleven, maar dat is geen excuus voor het gebrek aan politieke visie. Er ontstaat dus een lacune en ik denk dat de BDS-beweging wel een duidelijke richting aangeeft. Ze is geen alternatief voor het partijsysteem, maar komt wel op voor de rechten van de Palestijnen. Momenteel zitten we in een overgangsfase in die zin dat Palestijnen zich vragen beginnen te stellen en bijvoorbeeld kritisch reflecteren over hun leiders, gezagsorganen, enzovoort. Ze zijn alleszins niet tevreden met de keuzes die er nu zijn.

Waarom heeft de Arabische lente niet in Palestina plaatsgevonden?

Ik moet je eraan herinneren dat Palestina al tientallen jaren continu strijd voert. Voor vele Egyptische en Tunesische activisten is de Palestijnse revolte een inspiratiebron. Het Palestijns activisme biedt immers weerstand tegen onderdrukking. Het feit dat de Palestijnse gebieden bezet zijn, heeft gevolgen. De revolutie verloopt niet zoals in de andere landen. De Arabische lente is niet enkel revolutie en opstand, maar heeft ook te maken met contrarevolutie. Die situatie heb je ook in Palestina, met de installatie van de contrarevolutionaire Palestijnse Autoriteit die door Israël, de Verenigde Staten en Europa wordt ondersteund.

Wat zijn de gevolgen van de revoluties? Hebben ze volgens jou een effect?

Ja, maar ze hebben tijd nodig. Israël is duidelijk bezorgd. Ze zien die ontwikkelingen in het algemeen als negatief. Israël claimt de enige democratie in de regio te zijn. Een democratie die blijkbaar wel afhankelijk is van dictators. De revoluties zullen effect hebben, maar de contrarevolutie is ook heel sterk en het is nog niet duidelijk wie op korte termijn zal winnen. De belangrijkste factor in de regio blijft het imperialisme van de Verenigde Staten, ook al is het een steeds zwakker wordende macht. Ze willen hun globale politieke en economische rol behouden.

Wat is jou mening omtrent de Israëlische lobby?

De lobby heeft veel componenten. Een belangrijke vraag betreft: is de Israëlische lobby een onafhankelijk factor of is ze zo machtig wegens de link met Amerikaanse imperiale belangen? Zonder daar op in te gaan, kan ik zeggen dat de lobby heel machtig is en mede het publieke discours bepaalt.

Ze is echter niet almachtig, want de lobby wordt steeds meer uitgedaagd. Ook al is er in de Verenigde Staten een consensus te bespeuren tegenover Israël, toch wordt dit onder de oppervlakte gecontesteerd. Er bestaat namelijk een sterke stroming binnen het Amerikaans militair en politiek establishment die vindt dat Israël aansprakelijk is. Niet aansprakelijk voor het schenden van de mensenrechten van de Palestijnen, maar wel aansprakelijk voor de vermindering van de Amerikaanse hegemonie en het imperialisme in de regio. Het gaat dus niet over een pro-Palestijnse stroming. Ze ziet Israël als een last voor het vooropgestelde doel van de Verenigde Staten.

Proberen Palestijnen ook te lobbyen?

Sommige Palestijnen proberen ook lobbygroepen te vormen, maar dit blijft zonder resultaat. Ze hebben de VS immers niets te bieden. De Verenigde Staten ontvangen de diensten die ze nodig hebben rechtstreeks van verschillende andere Arabische regimes uit de regio.

TRANSLATE

Seymour Hersh: Iran and the I.A.E.A.

2011-11-20T13:08:00.001+01:00

(Hotel Terminus says) Did Iran ever show an image like this, about how they can strike
the Holy Land's illegal 200 nuclear warheads? Imagine the headlines!

IRAN AND THE I.A.E.A.

link | By Seymour Hersh | 18.11.2011 | NEDERLANDS

The first question in last Saturday night’s Republican debate on foreign policy dealt with Iran, and a newly published report by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The report, which raised renewed concern about the “possible existence of undeclared nuclear facilities and material in Iran,” struck a darker tone than previous assessments. But it was carefully hedged. On the debate platform, however, any ambiguity was lost. One of the moderators said that the I.A.E.A. report had provided “additional credible evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon” and asked what various candidates, upon winning the Presidency, would do to stop Iran. Herman Cain said he would assist those who are trying to overthrow the government. Newt Gingrich said he would coördinate with the Israeli government and maximize covert operations to block the Iranian weapons program. Mitt Romney called the state of Iran’s nuclear program Obama’s “greatest failing, from a foreign-policy standpoint” and added, “Look, one thing you can know … and that is if we reëlect Barack Obama Iran will have a nuclear weapon.” The Iranian bomb was a sure thing Saturday night.

I’ve been reporting on Iran and the bomb for The New Yorker for the past decade, with a focus on the repeatedly inability of the best and the brightest of the Joint Special Operations Command to find definitive evidence of a nuclear-weapons production program in Iran. The goal of the high-risk American covert operations was to find something physical—a “smoking calutron,” as a knowledgeable official once told me—to show the world that Iran was working on warheads at an undisclosed site, to make the evidence public, and then to attack and destroy the site.

The Times reported, in its lead story the day after the report came out, that I.A.E.A. investigators “have amassed a trove of new evidence that, they say, makes a ‘credible’ case” that Iran may be carrying out nuclear-weapons activities. The newspaper quoted a Western diplomat as declaring that “the level of detail is unbelievable…. The report describes virtually all the steps to make a nuclear warhead and the progress Iran has achieved in each of those steps. It reads likes a menu.” The Times set the tone for much of the coverage. (A second Times story that day on the I.A.E.A. report noted, more cautiously, that “it is true that the basic allegations in the report are not substantially new, and have been discussed by experts for years.”)

But how definitive, or transformative, were the findings? The I.A.E.A. said it had continued in recent years “to receive, collect and evaluate information relevant to possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program” and, as a result, it has been able “to refine its analysis.” The net effect has been to create “more concern.” But Robert Kelley, a retired I.A.E.A. director and nuclear engineer who previously spent more than thirty years with the Department of Energy’s nuclear-weapons program, told me that he could find very little new information in the I.A.E.A. report. He noted that hundreds of pages of material appears to come from a single source: a laptop computer, allegedly supplied to the I.A.E.A. by a Western intelligence agency, whose provenance could not be established. Those materials, and others, “were old news,” Kelley said, and known to many journalists. “I wonder why this same stuff is now considered ‘new information’ by the same reporters.”

A nuanced assessment of the I.A.E.A. report was published by the Arms Control Association (A.C.A.), a nonprofit whose mission is to encourage public support for effective arms control. The A.C.A. noted that the I.A.E.A. did “reinforce what the nonproliferation community has recognized for some times: that Iran engaged in various nuclear weapons development activities until 2003, then stopped many of them, but continued others.” (The American intelligence community reached the same conclusion in a still classified 2007 estimate.) The I.A.E.A.’s report “suggests,” the A.C.A. paper said, that Iran “is working to shorten the timeframe to build the bomb once and if it makes that decision. But it remains apparent that a nuclear-armed Iran is still not imminent nor is it inevitable.” Greg Thielmann, a former State Department and Senate Intelligence Committee analyst who was one of the authors of the A.C.A. assessment, told me, “There is troubling evidence suggesting that studies are still going on, but there is nothing that indicates that Iran is really building a bomb.” He added, “Those who want to drum up support for a bombing attack on Iran sort of aggressively misrepresented the report.”

Joseph Cirincione, the president of the Ploughshare Fund, a disarmament group, who serves on Hillary Clinton’s International Security Advisory Board, said, “I was briefed on most of this stuff several years ago at the I.A.E.A. headquarters in Vienna. There’s little new in the report. Most of this information is well known to experts who follow the issue.” Cirincione noted that “post-2003, the report only cites computer modelling and a few other experiments.” (A senior I.A.E.A. official similarly told me, “I was underwhelmed by the information.”)

The report did note that its on-site camera inspection process of Iran’s civilian nuclear enrichment facilities—mandated under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory—“continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material.” In other words, all of the low enriched uranium now known to be produced inside Iran is accounted for; if highly enriched uranium is being used for the manufacture of a bomb, it would have to have another, unknown source.

The shift in tone at the I.A.E.A. seems linked to a change at the top. The I.A.E.A.’s report had extra weight because the Agency has had a reputation for years as a reliable arbiter on Iran. Mohammed ElBaradei, who retired as the I.A.E.A.’s Director General two years ago, was viewed internationally, although not always in Washington, as an honest broker—a view that lead to the awarding of a Nobel Peace Prize in 2005. ElBaradei’s replacement is Yukiya Amano of Japan. Late last year, a classified U.S. Embassy cable from Vienna, the site of the I.A.E.A. headquarters, described Amano as being “ready for prime time.” According to the cable, which was obtained by WikiLeaks, in a meeting in September, 2009, with Glyn Davies, the American permanent representative to the I.A.E.A., said, “Amano reminded Ambassador on several occasions that he would need to make concessions to the G-77 [the group of developing countries], which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent, but that he was solidly in the U.S. court on every strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.” The cable added that Amano’s “willingness to speak candidly with U.S. interlocutors on his strategy … bodes well for our future relationship.”

It is possible, of course, that Iran has simply circumvented the reconnaissance efforts of America and the I.A.E.A., perhaps even building Dick Cheney’s nightmare: a hidden underground nuclear-weapons fabrication facility. Iran’s track record with the I.A.E.A. has been far from good: its leadership began construction of its initial uranium facilities in the nineteen-eighties without informing the Agency, in violation of the nonproliferation treaty. Over the next decade and a half, under prodding from ElBaradei and the West, the Iranians began acknowledging their deceit and opened their enrichment facilities, and their records, to I.A.E.A. inspectors.

The new report, therefore, leaves us where we’ve been since 2002, when George Bush declared Iran to be a member of the Axis of Evil—with lots of belligerent talk but no definitive evidence of a nuclear-weapons program.

Seymour M. Hersh wrote his first piece for The New Yorker in 1971 and has been a regular contributor to the magazine since 1993. His journalism and publishing awards include a Pulitzer Prize, five George Polk Awards, two National Magazine Awards, and more than a dozen other prizes for investigative reporting. As a staff writer, Hersh won a National Magazine Award for Public Interest for his 2003 articles “Lunch with the Chairman,” “Selective Intelligence,” and “The Stovepipe.” In 2004, Hersh exposed the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in a series of pieces in the magazine; in 2005, he again received a National Magazine Award for Public Interest, an Overseas Press Club award, the National Press Foundation’s Kiplinger Distinguished Contributions to Journalism award, and his fifth George Polk Award, making him that award’s most honored laureate.

Imprisoning a whole nation

2011-11-19T17:55:00.001+01:00

John Pilger | New Statesman | 22.05.2007 | NEDERLANDS

In an article for the New Statesman, John Pilger describes how Gaza in Palestine has come to symbolise the imposition of great power on the powerless, in the Middle East and all over the world, and how a vocabulary of double standard is employed to justify this epic tragedy.

Israel is destroying any notion of a state of Palestine and is being allowed to imprison an entire nation. That is clear from the latest attacks on Gaza, whose suffering has become a metaphor for the tragedy imposed on the peoples of the Middle East and beyond. These attacks, reported on Britain's Channel 4 News, were “targeting key militants of Hamas” and the “Hamas infrastructure”. The BBC described a “clash” between the same militants and Israeli F-16 aircraft.

Consider one such clash. The militants’ car was blown to pieces by a missile from a fighter-bomber. Who were these militants? In my experience, all the people of Gaza are militant in their resistance to their jailer and tormentor. As for the “Hamas infrastructure”, this was the headquarters of the party that won last year’s democratic elections in Palestine. To report that would give the wrong impression. It would suggest that the people in the car and all the others over the years, the babies and the elderly who have also “clashed” with fighter-bombers, were victims of a monstrous injustice. It would suggest the truth.

“Some say,” said the Channel 4 reporter, that “Hamas has courted this [attack]...” Perhaps he was referring to the rockets fired at Israel from within the prison of Gaza which killed no one. Under international law an occupied people has the right to use arms against the occupier’s forces. This right is never reported. The Channel 4 reporter referred to an “endless war”, suggesting equivalents. There is no war. There is resistance among the poorest, most vulnerable people on earth to an enduring, illegal occupation imposed by the world’s fourth largest military power, whose weapons of mass destruction range from cluster bombs to thermonuclear devices, bankrolled by the superpower. In the past six years alone, wrote the historian Ilan Pappé, “Israeli forces have killed more than 4,000 Palestinians, half of them children”.

Consider how this power works. According to documents obtained by United Press International, the Israelis once secretly funded Hamas as “a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO [Palestine Liberation Organisation] by using a competing religious alternative”, in the words of a former CIA official.

Today, Israel and the US have reversed this ploy and openly back Hamas’s rival, Fatah, with bribes of millions of dollars. Israel recently secretly allowed 500 Fatah fighters to cross into Gaza from Egypt, where they had been trained by another American client, the Cairo dictatorship. The Israelis’ aim is to undermine the elected Palestinian government and ignite a civil war. They have not quite succeeded. In response, the Palestinians forged a government of national unity, of both Hamas and Fatah. The latest attacks are aimed at destroying this.

With Gaza secured in chaos and the West Bank walled in, the Israeli plan, wrote the Palestinian academic Karma Nabulsi, is “a Hobbesian vision of an anarchic society: truncated, violent, powerless, destroyed, cowed, ruled by disparate militias, gangs, religious ideologues and extremists, broken up into ethnic and religious tribalism and co-opted collaborationists. Look to the Iraq of today...”

On 19 May, the Guardian received this letter from Omar Jabary al-Sarafeh, a Ramallah resident: “Land, water and air are under constant sight of a sophisticated military surveillance system that makes Gaza like The Truman Show,” he wrote. “In this film every Gazan actor has a predefined role and the [Israeli] army behaves as a director... The Gaza strip needs to be shown as what it is... an Israeli laboratory backed by the international community where human beings are used as rabbits to test the most dramatic and perverse practices of economic suffocation and starvation.”

The remarkable Israeli journalist Gideon Levy has described the starvation sweeping Gaza’s more than a million and a quarter inhabitants and the “thousands of wounded, disabled and shell-shocked people unable to receive any treatment... The shadows of human beings roam the ruins... They only know the [Israeli army] will return and they know what this will mean for them: more imprisonment in their homes for weeks, more death and destruction in monstrous proportions”.

Whenever I have been in Gaza, I have been consumed by this melancholia, as if I were a trespasser in a secret place of mourning. Skeins of smoke from wood fires hang over the same Mediterranean Sea that free peoples know, but not here. Along beaches that tourists would regard as picturesque trudge the incarcerated of Gaza; lines of sepia figures become silhouettes, marching at the water’s edge, through lapping sewage. The water and power are cut off, yet again, when the generators are bombed, yet again. Iconic murals on walls pockmarked by bullets commemorate the dead, such as the family of 18 men, women and children who “clashed” with a 500lb American/Israeli bomb, dropped on their block of flats as they slept. Presumably, they were militants.

More than 40 per cent of the population of Gaza are children under the age of 15. Reporting on a four-year field study in occupied Palestine for the British Medical Journal, Dr Derek Summerfield wrote that “two-thirds of the 621 children killed at checkpoints, in the street, on the way to school, in their homes, died from small arms fire, directed in over half of cases to the head, neck and chest – the sniper’s wound”. A friend of mine with the United Nations calls them “children of the dust”. Their wonderful childishness, their rowdiness and giggles and charm, belie their nightmare.

I met Dr Khalid Dahlan, a psychiatrist who heads one of several children’s community health projects in Gaza. He told me about his latest survey. “The statistic I personally find unbearable,” he said, “is that 99.4 per cent of the children we studied suffer trauma. Once you look at the rates of exposure to trauma, you see why: 99.2 per cent of the study group’s homes were bombarded; 97.5 per cent were exposed to tear gas; 96.6 per cent witnessed shootings; 95.8 per cent witnessed bombardment and funerals; almost a quarter saw family members injured or killed.”

He said children as young as three faced the dichotomy caused by having to cope with these conditions. They dreamt about becoming doctors and nurses, then this was overtaken by an apocalyptic vision of themselves as the next generation of suicide bombers. They experienced this invariably after an attack by the Israelis. For some boys, their heroes were no longer football players, but a confusion of Palestinian “martyrs” and even the enemy, “because Israeli soldiers are the strongest and have Apache gunships”.

Shortly before he died, Edward Said bitterly reproached foreign journalists for what he called their destructive role in “stripping the context of Palestinian violence, the response of a desperate and horribly oppressed people, and the terrible suffering from which it arises”. Just as the invasion of Iraq was a “war by media”, so the same can be said of the grotesquely one-sided “conflict” in Palestine. As the pioneering work of the Glasgow University Media Group shows, television viewers are rarely told that the Palestinians are victims of an illegal military occupation; the term “occupied territories” is seldom explained. Only 9 per cent of young people interviewed in the UK know that the Israelis are the occupying force and the illegal settlers are Jewish; many believe them to be Palestinian. The selective use of language by broadcasters is crucial in maintaining this confusion and ignorance. Words such as “terrorism”, “murder” and “savage, cold-blooded killing” describe the deaths of Israelis, almost never Palestinians.

There are honourable exceptions. The kidnapped BBC reporter Alan Johnston is one of them. Yet, amidst the avalanche of coverage of his abduction, no mention is made of the thousands of Palestinians abducted by Israel, many of whom will not see their families for years. There are no appeals for them. In Jerusalem, the Foreign Press Association documents the shooting and intimidation of its members by Israeli soldiers. In one eight-month period, as many journalists, including the CNN bureau chief in Jerusalem, were wounded by the Israelis, some of them seriously. In each case, the FPA complained. In each case, there was no satisfactory reply.

A censorship by omission runs deep in western journalism on Israel, especially in the US. Hamas is dismissed as a “terrorist group sworn to Israel’s destruction” and one that “refuses to recognise Israel and wants to fight not talk”. This theme suppresses the truth: that Israel is bent on Palestine’s destruction. Moreover, Hamas’s long-standing proposals for a ten-year ceasefire are ignored, along with a recent, hopeful ideological shift within Hamas itself that amounts to a historic acceptance of the sovereignty of Israel. “The [Hamas] charter is not the Quran,” said a senior Hamas official, Mohammed Ghazal. “Historically, we believe all Palestine belongs to Palestinians, but we’re talking now about reality, about political solutions... If Israel reached a stage where it was able to talk to Hamas, I don’t think there would be a problem of negotiating with the Israelis [for a solution].”

When I last saw Gaza, driving towards the Israeli checkpoint and the razor wire, I was rewarded with a spectacle of Palestinian flags fluttering from inside the walled compounds. Children were responsible for this, I was told. They make flagpoles out of sticks tied together and one or two will climb on to a wall and hold the flag between them, silently. They do it when there are foreigners around and they believe they can tell the world.

Police Brutality and Lies at UC Davis

2011-11-19T16:29:00.004+01:00

If you don't come to democracy, democracy will come to you.

studentactivism.net | 19.11.2011 | NEDERLANDS

Yesterday afternoon, after UC Davis police dismantled an Occupy encampment on their campus, making several arrests, a group of students sat down.

That’s it. They sat down in a wide ring around the officers, and bowed their heads. Some linked arms. Many did not. Officers were positioned behind the line and in front of them, and — video shows — were able to move past them easily in either direction.

In order to clear the demonstrators police pepper-sprayed the line. Just sprayed the entire line of students with a casual sweeping motion. Video shows that within eight seconds of the first use of spray, the line was broken up and no longer restricted police action at all. (One student on the scene says that police sprayed the thickest section of the line and that there were gaps in it at other points. That it was always, in other words, a symbolic rather than actual barrier.)

Students. Sitting down. With bowed heads. On university property. Police freely moving around them, pepper spraying them, facing no resistance whatsoever. Within eight seconds the students represented no impediment to anyone. They were just students sitting on the ground.

Here’s how a Davis faculty member who was on the scene describes what happened next:

Police used batons to try to push the students apart. Those they could separate, they arrested, kneeling on their bodies and pushing their heads into the ground. Those they could not separate, they pepper-sprayed directly in the face, holding these students as they did so. When students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats. Several of these students were hospitalized. Others are seriously injured. One of them, forty-five minutes after being pepper-sprayed down his throat, was still coughing up blood.

Not all of this account is corroborated by video, but much of it is. Cameras caught police kneeling on students’ backs and spraying them directly in the face. Local media reported that at least one female student was taken from the scene in an ambulance “for treatment of chemical burns.”

In Seattle, police penned protestors onto the sidewalk before pepper spraying–protestors who included 84 year-old Dorli Rainey and a pregnant woman.

The chief of the UC Davis police department told the local CBS news that officers began spraying, in the station’s paraphrase, “out of concern for their own safety,” a claim that video and photos of the incident demonstrates to be completely false. She told the Sacramento Bee that officers “officers were forced to use pepper spray when students surrounded them,” that — and this is a direct quote — “there was no way out of that circle.” But video shows, again, that officers were moving freely throughout the incident. The officer who sprayed first, in fact (identified online as Lt. John Pike) was standing inside the circle immediately before he began spraying, and stepped past the students, out of the circle, in order to spray them.

UC Davis chancellor Linda Katehi released a statement last night in which she said she “deeply regret students’ actions yesterday, actions that “offer[ed] us no option but to ask the police to assist in their removal.” But of course you can’t regret something that someone else did, something you had no control over.

For the actions she did have control over, and will have control over in the future — the violence of her police — Katehi expressed no regret. She was, she said, “saddened.” She was “saddened to report that during this activity, 10 protestors were arrested and pepper spray was used,” and “saddened by the events that subsequently transpired to facilitate their removal.” No regret. Not even an active voice.

Just sadness at what those awful students made her do.

The History of Palestine (video)

2011-11-15T09:35:00.000+01:00

De Iraanse dreiging (2)

2011-11-10T12:27:00.003+01:00

Vervolg op De Iraanse dreiging (1)

Inmiddels gonst het weer van de desinformatie uit het gelekte (sic) IAEA-rapport over de Iraanse nucleaire activiteiten, dat hoofdzakelijk gebruik maakt van veronderstellingen met de woorden "zou", "kan" en "mogelijk" e.d. Hoewel er in het rapport geen enkele 'smoking gun' te vinden is, wordt het rapport zélf als 'smoking gun' naar voren geschoven.

De propaganda die verspreid wordt kunt u onverbloemd lezen in de christen-zionistische koerier het Friesch Dagblad, dat niet alleen heilig gelooft in God, de Heere Jezus en de Bijbel, maar ook in Israël's regerings- en legerpropaganda. Net als de meeste journalisten van de commerciële massamedia, heb ik de indruk.
Ik noem het Friesch Dagblad omdat het in wezen dezelfde boodschap verspreidt als onze "kwaliteitspers", alleen de laatste manipuleert haar berichten door vaak anonieme "deskundigen" of anonieme "officials" op te voeren die spreken over geheime rapporten, documenten en andere bronloze geruchten. De "kwaliteitspers" spant zich namelijk meer in om het nieuws geloofwaardig te laten lijken dan dat het boude en zelf gevaarlijke beweringen op waarheid onderzoekt. Zoals de aanjager deze keer de Washington Post:

Intelligence provided to U.N. nuclear officials shows that Iran’s government has mastered the critical steps needed to build a nuclear weapon, receiving assistance from foreign scientists to overcome key technical hurdles, according to Western diplomats and nuclear experts briefed on the findings. (Washington Post, 07.11.2011)

Overschrijven

U hoeft echter de Washington Post niet te lezen, omdat onze Nederlandse kranten en persbureau's de teksten uit de VS (en in deze uit Israël/USraël) meestal alleen maar vertalen en daarna opdienen. Onze nieuwsmedia lijken de vuistregel te hanteren: hoe machtiger het land, hoe betrouwbaarder de informatie. De werkelijkheid zit natuurlijk andersom in elkaar, maar het kritiekloos overnemen van die informatie overnemen is nu eenmaal 'veilig': het betreft immers de officiële werkelijkheid, en het scheelt enorm in de personeelskosten. Afgezien daarvan zijn onze journalisten aartslui, want in de regel trekken zij de informatie die ze, soms overnemen en soms aangereikt krijgen, niet na op waarheid.

Illustratie van het Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS). Denk u eens in hoe de wereld zou reageren wanneer Iran zo'n kaart zou publiceren met raketten richting Israël...

Terug naar de Iraanse dreiging. Het persbureau IPS (Inter Press Service) is zo'n beetje nog het enige persbureau dat wél bronnen onderzoekt, en komt vandaag met de onthullende mededeling dat de "atoomgeleerde uit de voormalige Sovjet-Unie", aldus het ANP , die volgens het IAEA-rapport Iran aan een ontstekingsmechanisme voor een atoombom geholpen zou hebben, helemaal geen atoomgeleerde is, maar een onderzoeker van nanodiamanten, die ontstaan na een explosie van een mix van TNT en RDX in een afgesloten ruimte. En ontdekte het meer tegenstrijdigheden. Het IPS-artikel staat onderaan dit log.

Anti-Iran propaganda in Nederland

Welke Nederlandse nieuwsmedia verspreiden de nu al gedeeltelijk aangetoond leugenachtige propaganda, zeer waarschijnlijk afkomstig uit Israël? Voor u misschien een eye-opener:

Trouw (redactie)

Iran is bijna in staat een atoombom te bouwen. Met buitenlandse hulp heeft de islamitische republiek de belangrijkste en moeilijkste stappen daarvoor onder de knie gekregen.
(...)
Iran zou onder meer hebben geleerd een nucleaire kettingreactie in een atoombom op gang te brengen. Die reactie maakt een kernexplosie allesverwoestend. De techniek zou ze zijn bijgebracht door een atoomgeleerde uit de voormalige Sovjet-Unie.

NRC (Jules Segers)

Volgens het Internationaal Atoomenergieagentschap (IAEA) heeft Iran de laatste stappen gezet om een nucleair wapen te kunnen bouwen. Wetenschappers van over de grens zouden het land geholpen hebben bij het nemen van “cruciale technische horden”. (...) “Ze zijn er nooit mee opgehouden”, zegt David Albright, ex-IEAE, die de geheime informatie bestudeerde.

Volkskrant (redactie)

Het IAEA stelde vandaag aanwijzingen te hebben dat Iran minstens tot vorig jaar aan een atoomwapen heeft gewerkt. Een deel van het werk zou mogelijk momenteel worden voortgezet.

Het rapport bevat de duidelijkste aanwijzingen tot dusver dat Iran aan een atoomwapen werkt. De onderzoekers spreken over 'algemeen betrouwbare' informatie uit rapporten van buitenlandse geheime diensten en uit eigen onderzoek.

ANP (diverse nieuwsmedia)

Gegevens in handen van functionarissen van het Internationaal Atoomagentschap (IAEA) tonen aan dat Iran cruciale technieken beheerst die nodig zijn om een nucleair wapen te bouwen.
(...)
Zo zouden buitenlandse experts Iraanse wetenschappers hebben geïnstrueerd bij de bouw van ontstekers die een nucleaire kettingreactie in gang kunnen zetten.

NOS
Bij uitzondering blijft de NOS deze keer vrij beschaafd door steeds weer duidelijk aan te geven dat het om de (vermeende) mening van het IAEA gaat, en heeft naar het lijkt zowaar het rapport gelezen. Maar ook dit staatsapparaat heeft geen moeite gedaan om wat er beweerd wordt op waarheid te toetsen. Haar laatste zin spreekt ook weer boekdelen: "Iran zelf heeft altijd beweerd dat het atoomprogramma alleen is bedoeld voor het opwekken van energie." Manipulatief taalgebruik dat suggereert dat Iran kernwapens aan het maken is en dat het daarover liegt.

Natuurlijk doen de derderangs hysterie- en pulpnieuwsmedia als Elsevier, Sp!ts en PowNed het nog veel slechter dan onze zelfgekroonde "kwaliteitspers".

Leestip: De volgende oorlog - De aanval op Iran: een voorbeschouwing, van onafhankelijk publicist Daan de Wit.

This cake was served at a Washington party November 5, 1946 to celebrate the success of the atomic testing program and the disbanding of the Joint Army-Navy Task Force Number One which organized and oversaw the first postwar atomic test in the Pacific.

IAEA's "Soviet Nuclear Scientist" Never Worked on Weapons

IPS | By Gareth Porter | 09.11.2011 | NEDERLANDS

WASHINGTON, Nov 9, 2011 (IPS) - The report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) published by a Washington think tank Tuesday repeated the sensational claim previously reported by news media all over the world that a former Soviet nuclear weapons scientist had helped Iran construct a detonation system that could be used for a nuclear weapon.

But it turns out that the foreign expert, who is not named in the IAEA report but was identified in news reports as Vyacheslav Danilenko, is not a nuclear weapons scientist but one of the top specialists in the world in the production of nanodiamonds by explosives.

In fact, Danilenko, a Ukrainian, has worked solely on nanodiamonds from the beginning of his research career and is considered one of the pioneers in the development of nanodiamond technology, as published scientific papers confirm.

It now appears that the IAEA and David Albright, the director of the International Institute for Science and Security in Washington, who was the source of the news reports about Danilenko, never bothered to check the accuracy of the original claim by an unnamed "Member State" on which the IAEA based its assertion about his nuclear weapons background.

Albright gave a "private briefing" for "intelligence professionals" last week, in which he named Danilenko as the foreign expert who had been contracted by Iran's Physics Research Centre in the mid-1990s and identified him as a "former Soviet nuclear scientist", according to a story by Joby Warrick of the Washington Post on Nov. 5.

The Danilenko story then went worldwide.

The IAEA report says the agency has "strong indications" that Iran's development of a "high explosions initiation system", which it has described as an "implosion system" for a nuclear weapon, was "assisted by the work of a foreign expert who was not only knowledgeable on these technologies, but who, a Member State has informed the Agency, worked for much of his career in the nuclear weapon program of the country of his origin."

The report offers no other evidence of Danilenko's involvement in the development of an initiation system.

The member state obviously learned that Danilenko had worked during the Soviet period at the All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Technical Physics in Snezhinsk, Russia, which was well known for its work on development of nuclear warheads and simply assumed that he had been involved in that work.

However, further research would have revealed that Danilenko worked from the beginning of his career in a part of the Institute that specialised in the synthesis of diamonds. Danilenko wrote in an account of the early work in the field published in 2006 that he was among the scientists in the "gas dynamics group" at the Institute who were "the first to start studies on diamond synthesis in 1960".

Danilenko's recollections of the early period of his career are in a chapter of the book, "Ultrananocrystalline Diamond: Synthesis, Properties and Applications" edited by Olga A. Shenderova and Dieter M. Gruen, published in 2006.

Another chapter in the book covering the history of Russian patents related to nanodiamonds documents the fact that Danilenko's centre at the Institute developed key processes as early as 1963-66 that were later used at major "detonaton nanodiamond" production centres.

Danilenko left the Institute in 1989 and joined the Institute of Materials Science Problems in Ukraine, according to the authors of that chapter.

Danilenko's major accomplishment, according to the authors, has been the development of a large-scale technology for producing ultradispersed diamonds, a particular application of nanodiamonds. The technology, which was later implemented by the "ALIT" company in Zhitomir, Ukraine, is based on an explosion chamber 100 sq metres in volume, which Danilenko designed.

Beginning in 1993, Danilenko was a principal in a company called "Nanogroup" which was established initially in the Ukraine but is now based in Prague. The company's website boasts that it has "the strongest team of scientists" which had been involved in the "introduction of nanodiamonds in 1960 and the first commercial applications of nanodiamonds in 2000".

The declared aim of the company is to supply worldwide demand for nanodiamonds.

Iran has an aggressive programme to develop its nanotechnology sector, and it includes as one major focus nanodiamonds, as blogger Moon of Alabama has pointed out. That blog was the first source to call attention to Danilenko's nanodiamond background.

Danilenko clearly explained that the purpose of his work in Iran was to help the development of a nanodiamond industry in the country.

The report states that the "foreign expert" was in Iran from 1996 to about 2002, "ostensibly to assist in the development of a facility and techniques for making ultra dispersed diamonds (UDDs) or nanodiamonds…" That wording suggests that nanodiamonds were merely a cover for his real purpose in Iran.

The report says the expert "also lectured on explosive physics and its applications", without providing any further detail about what applications were involved.

The fact that the IAEA and Albright were made aware of Danilenko's nanodiamond work in Iran before embracing the "former Soviet nuclear weapons specialist" story makes their failure to make any independent inquiry into his background even more revealing.

The tale of a Russian nuclear weapons scientist helping construct an "implosion system" for a nuclear weapon is the most recent iteration of a theme that the IAEA introduced in its May 2008 report, which mentioned a five-page document describing experimentation with a "complex multipoint initiation system to detonate a substantial amount of high explosives in hemispherical geometry" and to monitor the detonation.

Iran acknowledged using "exploding bridge wire" detonators such as those mentioned in that document for conventional military and civilian applications. But it denounced the document, along with the others in the "alleged studies" collection purporting to be from an Iranian nuclear weapons research programme, as fakes.

Careful examination of the "alleged studies" documents has revealed inconsistencies and other anomalies that give evidence of fraud. But the IAEA, the United States and its allies in the IAEA continue to treat the documents as though there were no question about their authenticity.

The unnamed member state that informed the agency about Danilenko's alleged experience as a Soviet nuclear weapons scientist is almost certainly Israel, which has been the source of virtually all the purported intelligence on Iranian work on nuclear weapons over the past decade.

Israel has made no secret of its determination to influence world opinion on the Iranian nuclear programme by disseminating information to governments and news media, including purported Iran government documents. Israeli foreign ministry and intelligence officials told journalists Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins about the special unit of Mossad dedicated to that task at the very time the fraudulent documents were being produced.

In an interview in September 2008, Albright said Olli Heinonen, then deputy director for safeguards at the IAEA, had told him that a document from a member state had convinced him that the "alleged studies" documents were genuine. Albright said the state was "probably Israel".

The Jerusalem Post's Yaakov Katz reported Wednesday that Israeli intelligence agencies had "provided critical information used in the report", the purpose of which was to "push through a new regime of sanctions against Tehran…."

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.

Waarom de Volkskrant het artikel 'Alleen commissie-De Wit is tevreden' heeft verwijderd

2011-11-08T21:58:00.002+01:00

"De Volkskrant is een kwaliteitskrant die elke dag verrast en bovenop het nieuws zit. De krant is gezaghebbend en kritisch, maar voor lezers makkelijk toegankelijk. Zij leidt de lezers door Nederland en de wereld, en heeft oog voor de vrolijke kanten van het leven."
(De Persgroep - vette tekst integraal overgenomen)

Op 5 februari 2010 publiceerde de Volkskrant een "analyse" van haar verslaggevers Douwe Douwes en Robert Giebels over de eerste vragenronde van de commissie-De Wit, die momenteel begonnen is met haar tweede ronde in de vorm van een parlementaire enquete om de oorzaken van de financiële crisis te onderzoeken - en wederom níet om de verantwoordelijke banksters aan te wijzen. De link naar het artikel was http://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/article1345797.ece. Gisterenavond kon ik het artikel nog ophalen in de Wayback Machine van Internet Archive, vandaag merkwaardig genoeg niet meer (robots.text is verwijderd). Hier is het nog wel te lezen, en onderaan dit log. Vanwaar deze zelfcensuur?

"De lezers van de Volkskrant zijn koopkrachtige consumenten, hoogopgeleid en actief in een baan of studie. Veel managers en directieleden lezen de Volkskrant."
(De Persgroep - vette tekst integraal overgenomen)

Dan moet u weten dat de Volkskrant in werkelijkheid geen "kwaliteitskrant" is, zoals het zichzelf heeft gekroond, maar een gewoon mainstream commercieel dagblad, dat lezers en adverteerders moet genereren. En om die "koopkrachtige consumenten" en "managers en directieleden" tevreden te houden moet je ze geven wat ze willen, en dat houdt kort samengevat in dat de macht niet bekritiseerd of bevraagd zal worden - tenzij het absoluut veilig is om dat te doen. Het grote nieuws meestal in navolging van de grote Amerikaanse (het machtigste land ter wereld) persbureau's en kranten. Wat de meeste mensen "het nieuws" en "informatie" noemen, kan worden samengevat met wat 'de officiele werkelijkheid' heet. Een voorbeeld is de officiële werkelijkheid over de noodzaak van een oorlog tegen Irak: dat het Irakese volk bevrijd moest worden van een wrede dictator (na de massavernietigingswapen-hoax). De echte werkelijkheid is dat de VS Irak wilde bezetten om haar financiële belangen veilig te stellen.

De officiële werkelijkheid over de huidige (parlementaire enquete) en de vorige (parlementair onderzoek) commissie-De Wit is niet dat geen van de leden de kennis in huis heeft om de financiële sector aan de tand te voelen. En waarom dat is, dat vragen onze journalisten zich ook niet af. De officiële werkelijkheid is dat de commissie-De Wit serieus de oorzaken van de kredietcrisis onderzoekt om te voorkomen dat de 'fouten' die daarbij zijn gemaakt in de toekomst niet meer zullen voorkomen. In werkelijkheid betreft het een amateuristische opvoering waarin géén verantwoordelijen worden aangewezen en er voor géén van de banksters consequenties volgen. Rationeel bekeken zullen op deze manier in de toekomst gegarandeerd weer dezelfde 'fouten' worden gaan gemaakt. Fouten tussen aanhalingstekens, omdat het gewoon om het dagelijkse reilen en zeilen van de financiële instituten ging waarvan iedereen al heel lang op de hoogte is.

De commissie-De Wit fungeert slechts als cosmetica, om de illusie van burgers in stand te houden dat Nederland op democratische wijze wordt bestuurd. Het grootst bewaarde geheim in deze is wel dat Wouter Bos (onze) miljarden in failliete windhandel heeft gepompt, in een buitenparlementaire actie - dus op ondemocratische wijze. En dat alle partijen, van links tot rechts, dat buitenparlementair hebben geakkoordeerd. En zij zodoende allemaal medeschuldig zijn aan de bezuinigingen die nu worden doorgevoerd, en bovenal het in stand houden van een in alle omstandigheden parasitair financieel systeem. In dat licht zijn de bezwaren tegen de bezuinigingen die de zogeheten oppositie momenteel laat horen ronduit leugenachtig - want zij wisten immers van tevoren dat de burger ervoor ging opdraaien.

In februari vorig jaar analyseerde de Volkskrant dus dat alleen de commissie-De Wit "intens tevreden" was, en onthulde het zelfs dat de "bedoeling" van die commissie was om de "welverdiende rust" te laten "neerdalen over de samenleving". Ook lezen we dat de commissie "niet-gespecialiseerd" is, en dat de commissie te kennen gaf dat het horen van de hoofdrolspelers onder ede "niet nodig" was: "Alles wat ze wilden horen, hebben ze gehoord, zeggen ze. De vragenlijst is geheel afgewerkt."

Maar het gedeelte officiële werkelijkheid is in dit artikel nog steeds aanwezig. Dat de commissie zo gefaald had was toch "niet meteen hun schuld", want de "duizelingwekkende hoeveelheid informatie en meningen" waren moeilijk te analyseren. Dat betreft een bevestiging van wat we eerder regelmatig in de "kwaliteitskranten" lazen: dat de problematiek van de windhandel zó "complex" en "ingewikkeld" was dat politici, bankiers en zelfs "de allerslimste economen" niet konden begrijpen hoe de kredietcrisis in Nederland had kunnen toeslaan.

Niet toevallig is dan ook dat momenteel weer precies hetzelfde wordt verkondigd over de "eurocrisis", anders genaamd dan de kredietcrisis om de illusie te wekken dat het een heel ander probleem betreft. Maar in de big picture van het kapitalistische systeem is het dat zeker niet. Dus officiële werkelijkheid houdt niet van big pictures, zoals historische context.

"Dat is één van de grote problemen van deze eurocrisis. De materie is zo ingewikkeld en zo complex dat vrijwel niemand de implicaties echt doorziet van alle besluiten die genomen moeten worden.

Dus kun je het de heren en dames politici moeilijk kwalijk nemen dat ook zij maar amper uit deze crisis komen. Ze zijn als simultaanschakers die blind moeten schaken terwijl de borden steeds verwisseld worden. Naast de immense problemen op de Europese financiële markten moet namelijk ook het thuisland tevreden worden gesteld."
(politiek redacteur van de Volkskrant Sebastiaan Timmermans, 26 oktober 2011)

Maar nu worden door de commissie-De Wit enkele hoofdrolspelers wél onder ede gehoord, gedwongen door het parlement, terwijl de "welverdiende rust" in de samenleving met de dag verder erodeert. Dat laatste is waar de macht het meest bang voor is - dat de burgers de banken niet meer willen betalen. Zaak is dus dat elke kritische noot over de commissie voorkomen moet worden, en toegespitst op de Volkskrant: dat het haar adverteerders (de macht) te vriend houdt. Dat is de reden voor het verwijderen van het artikel.

De noodzakelijke illusies

Noam Chomsky heeft dit lakeiensysteem, dat politiek en media de macht dienen, ons zogeheten poldermodel, uitstekend samengevat en in historische context geplaatst in het laatste hoofdstuk van zijn boek Deterring Democracy, genaamd 'Force and Opinion' (in het Nederlands vertaald door Extra!: Macht en Mening). In wat voor een democratie door moet gaan is het niet meer mogelijk om "de verwarde kudde" en het "domme gepeupel" met geweld in het gareel te houden. Daarvoor is in de loop der eeuwen in het Westen een public relations systeem ontwikkeld met als doel het parasitaire kapitalisme in stand te houden, door o.a. de burgers "de noodzakelijke illusies" voor te houden, en hen te beschermen tegen critici van het systeem met hun "opruiende smaad".

Controle over investeringen, productie, handel, financiën, werkomstandigheden, en andere cruciale aspecten van sociaal beleid zijn in particuliere handen. Wie niet bereid is zich neer te leggen bij deze machtsstructuren, betaalt een hoge prijs, die kan variëren van staatsgeweld tot armoede; zelfs een onafhankelijk denkend individu zal het niet moeilijk vinden om dit af te wegen de voordelen, hoe gering ook, van onderwerping. Wezenlijke keuzes worden aldus flink ingeperkt. Vergelijkbare factoren beperken het spectrum aan ideeën en meningen. De heersende opinies worden gevormd door dezelfde krachten die de economie beheersen. De media zijn het eigendom van grote bedrijven die het publiek verkopen aan andere grote bedrijven in de vorm van adverteerders, het is logisch dat hun belangen overheersen. De mogelijkheid om eigen meningen, zorgen en belangen te verwoorden en over te brengen - of ze zelfs maar te ontdekken - is dus eveneens zeer beperkt.

Het ontkennen van deze gemeenplaatsen over wie de werkelijke macht bezit is de essentie van het bedrog. In plaats daarvan krijgen we de 'noodzakelijke illusies' voorgeschoteld.

Wilt u weten hoe de Westerse 'vrijheid en democratie' tegenwoordig in elkaar steekt, dan is 'Macht en Mening' van Chomsky verplichte kost. En weet u ook meteen dat onze "kwaliteitskranten" met haar broodschrijvers in werkelijkheid reguliere commerciële bedrijven zijn die illusies en propaganda verspreiden die de macht dienen, in plaats van de burgers te informeren over de wereld.

De laatste berichten over de parlementaire enquete bevestigen alles wat ik hierboven beschreven heb: het zwarte schaap/kop van Jut is momenteel Wouter Bos. Een voor de hand liggende keuze, omdat die inmiddels ondergedoken zit bij de KPMG, waar hij partner werd gemaakt als dank voor bewezen diensten. Hij verdient daar momenteel ongeveer 400.000 euro per jaar voor een vierdaagse werkweek.
We lezen dat de politiek weinig te verwijten valt omdat het "buitenspel werd gezet" en Bos de "risico's te rooskleurig" voorstelde. Terwijl de politiek in werkelijkheid de buitenparlementaire ingrepen van Bos gewoon had geakkoordeerd, zonder voorwaarden te stellen. Inclusief de oppositie. En ook naderhand.

De "kwaliteitskranten", maar ook de "links" georienteerde media publiceren dat het "begrijpelijk" was dat de regering in 2008 het parlement niet vooraf had geïnformeerd over de overname van ABN Amro Nederland en delen van Fortis. Want de banken "dreigden om te vallen" en "er was niet genoeg tijd". Natuurlijk vermeldt men daar niet bij dat vele gerenommeerde economen al jarenlang voor deze situatie hebben gewaarschuwd, en dat er nadat de crisis in de VS losbarstte nog zeker een jaar de tijd is geweest om maatregelen te nemen te nemen voor Nederland. Want die feiten zouden afdoen aan de geloofwaardigheid van de officiële werkelijkheid.

Alleen commissie-De Wit is tevreden

ANALYSE, Van onze verslaggevers Douwe Douwes, Robert Giebels op 05 februari ‘10, 07:49, bijgewerkt 05 februari ‘10, 08:07

DEN HAAG - De opbrengst van de openbare gesprekken van de commissie-De Wit had groter kunnen zijn.

De commissie-De Wit is klaar met zijn openbare gesprekken en nu moet welverdiende rust neerdalen over de samenleving. Dat was de bedoeling van de acht Tweede Kamerleden die oorzaak en gevolg van de kredietcrisis wilden achterhalen. Maar na het 50 uur horen van 42 betrokkenen kan de parlementaire onderzoekscommissie het boek niet sluiten.

Dat is niet meteen hun schuld. Deze crisis heeft een duizelingwekkende hoeveelheid informatie en meningen opgeleverd. Voeg daar maar eens wat aan toe – vooral als niet-gespecialiseerd Kamerlid.

Pikants

Maar de opbrengst had wel groter kunnen zijn. De ene na de andere genodigde had zich voorgenomen om wat pikants te zeggen. Maar alleen als de commissie het er een beetje uit zou trekken. Centralebankpresident Nout Wellink, die bijna vijf uur werd verhoord, grossierde in zulke voorzetjes.

‘Maar ik zeg u wel dat we ons moesten baseren op de informatie van onze Belgische collega’s’, zei hij bijvoorbeeld over de overname door Fortis van ABN Amro. Een reeks van vragen had de commissie daarop moeten laten volgen, temeer omdat de Belgische toezichthouder geweigerd had te verschijnen. Maar ingaan op zulke suggesties zou betekenen dat de vragenlijst misschien niet helemaal kon worden afgewerkt.

Oneliner

Sommige gesprekken leverden toch wat op, doordat een betrokkene thuis voor de spiegel een fraaie oneliner had voorbereid. Zoals ex-topman van ABN Amro Rijkman Groenink, die plechtig verklaarde dat hij beter had kunnen aftreden voordat zijn bank in drie stukken werd gescheurd.

Op die rampzalige overname van ABN Amro ging de commissie uitvoerig in, hoewel die weinig met de kredietcrisis te maken heeft. Maar wat gaf dat? Spectaculair was het.

Kok

Net als het verpolitiekte verhoor van oud-premier Kok. Die was nét ING-commissaris of hij moest al meestemmen over torenhoge bonussen. Vele andere oud-ING-commissarissen hadden daar veel meer over kunnen vertellen, maar de commissie koos ervoor om de PvdA-prominent af laten gaan. ‘Is dat dan geen exhibitionistische zelfverrijking meneer Kok’, vroeg SP’er De Wit.

De commissie is intens tevreden. Hoofdrolspelers nog eens horen, maar dan onder ede, vinden de commissieleden niet nodig. Alles wat ze wilden horen, hebben ze gehoord, zeggen ze. De vragenlijst is geheel afgewerkt.

Freedom Waves en de propaganda in onze "kwaliteitspers"

2011-11-05T12:54:00.006+01:00

De officiële werkelijkheid over de misdaden van Israël wordt in Nederland nog steeds door Israël gedicteerd. Onze zogenaamd onafhankelijke commerciële massamedia, die zichzelf tot kwaliteitspers hebben gekroond, nemen die propaganda (hasbara) kritiekloos over. Met nieuws, informatie of journalistiek heeft het geen relatie.

Vragen hierover aan de betreffende redacties worden in de meeste gevallen niet beantwoord. Of na herhaaldelijk de vraag gestuurd te hebben, kun je na drie maanden wel eens de zeldzame kans hebben om een zeer geïrriteerde reactie te krijgen met "wij doen ons werk goed", "onze bronnen zijn betrouwbaar" en heel af en toe "want dat schrijven alle andere gerenommeerde kranten en persbureau's ook". Alsof Nederland een dictatoriaal regime is met een bevolking die gehersenspoeld moet worden, en blijven.

Schreef ik 'alsof'?

Naast dat de kaping van de boten Saoirse en Tahrir van de 'Freedom Waves' actie in (de verzwegen) internationale wateren momenteel een "onderschepping" wordt genoemd, is de algemeen gehanteerde verhaallijn dat dat de eigen eigen schuld was. Men deed immers niet wat het Israëlische leger (IDF) hen opdroeg: "Ze weigerden mee te werken." U begrijpt dat er over dezelfde handelingen van piraten in Afrikaanse wateren heel anders geschreven wordt.
Als reden voor de kaping wordt braaf uit de Iraëlische persberichten overgeschreven dat de zeeblokkade van Gaza is ingesteld "om te voorkomen dat Hamas over zee van wapens wordt voorzien door onder meer de Libanese Hezbollah-beweging." Terwijl al lang en breed bekend is, via het Israëlische leger nota bene, dat de blokkade van Gaza is ingesteld als "economische oorlogsvoering" tegen Hamas, "putting the people of Gaza on a diet". Het verzwijgen van dit feit vormt een van de vele bewijzen dat dat onze kwaliteitspers ¨waar het om de misdaden van Israël gaat simpelweg fuctioneert als de vooruitgeschoven post van de Israëlische regering/leger.

De precieze redenen van de actie van de twee boten van 'Freedom Waves' blijft in onze kranten nagenoeg onvermeld, omdat alleen het Israëlische leger/regering aan het woord komt. Genoegelijk wordt op die manier elke Israël-kritische noot, o.a. over de misdadige en illegale blokkade van Gaza, vermeden.

Gebruikte hasbara-terminologie kort:

Gekaapt en naar Israël gesleept -> "onderschept", "gekeerd", "gestopt" of "tegengehouden"
Internationale wateren -> "ongeveer 100 kilometer van de Gazastrook"
Bedreigd met geweld -> "aangeraden"
Geënterd -> "aan boord gegaan" (vorige keer sprak men nog van enteren)
Gaza -> "het Arabische gebied"
Liquidatie -> "vielen doden"

NRC: Israëlische marine onderschept Gaza-flotilla – 'geen gewonden'

Verzwegen wordt dat de aanval van Israëlische commando's plaatvond internationale wateren.
Getoond worden twee video's van het propagandabureau van het Israëlische leger (IDF), en een van een Press TV reporter aan boot van een "Freedom Waves" boot.
Alleen een Israëlische militair mag zijn zegje doen.
Elke context over de situatie in Gaza ontbreekt.
Vermeld wordt de Ïsraëlische 'reden' voor de "zeeblokkade" van Gaza, maar niet de reden voor de 'Freedom Waves' actie.
De kaping wordt ook een "onderscheppingsactie" van Israël genoemd. Net zoals het elke aanval op Palestijnen een "vergeldingsactie" noemt.

Novum/AP: Israël onderschept activistenboten Gaza

Uitsluitend 'informatie' van de bezetter.

Volkskrant (redactie): Israëlische troepen aan boord pro-Palestijnse flotilla

Alleen het IDF en Israëlische regering zijn bronnen.
De term 'internationale wateren' wordt ook hier vermeden. Wel wordt genoemd "al ver voor de kust van de Gazastrook" en "Ze waren nog ongeveer 100 kilometer van de Gazastrook verwijderd."
Vorig jaar vond er een spontane natuurramp plaats: er "vielen vorig jaar negen Turkse doden". Zomaar.
Opmerkelijk detail: de blokkade betreft niet Gaza, maar "het Arabische gebied". Ook het Parool schrijft een 'redactioneel' bericht waarin dezelfde term wordt gehanteerd. Sterker nog, de redactie van de Volkskrant en de redactie van het Parool blijken tegelijkertijd 'toevallig' precies hetzelfde bericht te hebben geschreven! Eens te meer een duidelijk bewijs dat er doodleuk een persbericht van het Israëlische leger of de ambassade wordt overgeschreven onder de noemer van een bericht van de redactie.

Persbureau ANP: Marine Israël keert boten met activisten

In plaats van het feitelijke kapen (of desgewenst: kidnappen) van de boten wordt ons met de titel wijsgemaakt dat ze 'gekeerd' werden, en in het bericht "tegengehouden".
Net als in alle andere berichten werd het de "pro-Palestijnse activisten" (vredes- en mensenrechtenactivisten) door Israëlische commando's "aangeraden" om te doen wat er van hen geëist werd. Een bijna buitenaards taalgebruik voor een situatie waarin mensen in de loop van een geweer kijken.

TRANSLATE

De Iraanse dreiging

2011-11-03T16:49:00.003+01:00

Israël is begonnen met haar bedreigingen om Iran aan te vallen in het begin van de jaren '90 met een uitgebreide propagandacampagne om de publieke opinie te beïnvloeden. De officiële reden van toen geldt vandaag de dag nog steeds: Iran zou binnen (zeer) korte tijd kernwapens bezitten. We mogen de propagandacampagne een groot succes noemen aangezien zelfs politici en de mainstream media in artikelen zonder blikken of blozen beweren dat Iran kernwapens bezit, en zodoende een ernstig gevaar oplevert voor Israël. Met haar ±200 atoombommen.

» NRC & Clingendael Instituut 2005: "Dat Iran kernwapens ontwikkelt, is nu wel duidelijk."
» ANP 2005: VS-ambassadeur: Iran ontwikkelt kernwapens
» Verhagen: Iran probeert kernwapens te verwerven (NOS & ANP 2010)
» Wim Kortenoeven (PVV, 2010): het Westen moet Iran aanvallen (vanwege "de gevaren van de islam")

Lees over de Nederlandse Bomb Iran lobby op dit weblog o.a.:

» Nederlandse vertaling lezing Noam Chomsky 13 maart 2011
» Reality Check: de Nederlandse Bomb Iran-lobby
» Israël's nucleaire dreiging
» 2007: Bot & Van Baalen pro illegaal kernwapenbezit
» CIDI-leugens en hypocrisie voor Rosenthal
» Dat was toen en dit is nu

We mogen ook niet vergeten:

Dat Iran (nog steeds) geen kernwapens heeft, en Israël wel
Dat Iran het Non-Proliferatieakkoord (NPT) heeft getekend, en Israël niet
Dat Iran atoominspecteurs (IAEA) toelaat en Israël niet
Dat Iran nog nooit een land heeft aangevallen, in tegenstelling tot Israël dat in constante staat van oorlog is met haar buren
Dat 'USrael' het grootste en sterkste leger ter wereld heeft

“We hebben enkele honderden kernkoppen en raketten om ze overal op te gooien, misschien zelfs op Rome. Met vliegtuigen zijn de meeste Europese hoofdsteden zelfs een doelwit.” --Martin Levi van Creveld, Elsevier 2002 (nr. 17, blz. 52-53, 27-4-2002).

New York Daily News, omslag 2007

Het mag duidelijk zijn dat het Westen de waanzin van Israël nog steeds volmondig steunt. Ook nooit ter sprake komt dat het constante dreigen met aanvallen op zich al een misdaad is volgens het Handvest van de VN, en in het bijzonder volgens Resolutie 1887 van de Veiligheidsraad. Sterker nog, in het Neurenberg Tribunaal, later door de VN overgenomen, werd naar dit soort dreigementen verwezen als een "misdaad tegen de vrede" waarop enkele nazi-kopstukken werden veroordeeld:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

De Israëlische hoogleraar in de scheikunde (Hebrew University, Stanford University), mensenrechtenactivist en publicist Israel Shahak (1933-2001) schreef er een hoofdstuk over in zijn boek Open Secrets: Israeli Foreign and Nuclear Policies (1993). Volgens Shahak heeft zo'n aanval niets te maken met de ideologie die theocratisch Iran uitdraagt, aangezien Israël ook Nasser's seculiere Egypte aanviel. Israël's redenen voor een aanval op Iran zijn louter hegemonisch van aard. Weest u er zich bewust van dat dit boek al van 1993 is.

Vervolg: De Iraanse dreiging (2)

TRANSLATE

Israel versus Iran

Israel Shahak | Open Secrets, Chapter 4 | 1993 | NEDERLANDS

Since the spring of 1992 public opinion in Israel is being prepared for the prospect of a war with Iran, to be fought to bring about Iran's total military and political defeat. In one version, Israel would attack Iran alone, in another it would "persuade" the West to do the job. The indoctrination campaign to this effect is gaining in intensity. It is accompanied by what could be called semi-official horror scenarios purporting to detail what Iran could do to Israel, the West and the entire world when it acquires nuclear weapons as it is expected to a few years hence. A manipulation of public opinion to this effect may well be considered too phantasmagoric to merit any detailed description. Still, the readers should take notice, especially since to all appearances the Israeli Security System does envisage the prospect seriously. In February 1993 minutely-detailed anticipations of Iran becoming a major target of Israeli policies became intense. I am going to confine myself to a sample of recent publications (in view of the monotony of their contents it will suffice), emphasizing how they envisage the possibility of "persuading" the West that Iran must be defeated. All Hebrew papers have shared in advocacy of this madness, with exception of Haaretz which has not dared to challenge it either. The Zionist "left" papers, Davar and Al Hamishmar have particularly distinguished themselves in bellicosity on the subject of Iran; more so than the right-wing Maariv. Below, I will concentrate on the recent writings of Al Hamishmar and Maariv about Iran, only occasionally mentioning what I found in other papers.

A major article by the political correspondent of Al Hamishmar, Yo'av Kaspi bears the title that summarizes its contents: "Iran needs to be treated just as Iraq had been" (February 19, 1993). The article contains an interview with Daniel Leshem, introduced as "a retired senior officer in the [Israeli] Military Intelligence, now member of the Centre for Strategic Research at the Tel Aviv University." Leshem is known to be involved in forming Israeli strategies. His account of how Iran is going to nuclearize is too dubious to merit coverage here as are his lamentations that "the world" has been ignoring the warnings of the Israeli experts who alone know all the truth about what the Muslim states are like. However, his proposals for the reversal of the progress of Iranian nuclearization are by all means worth of being reported. Leshem begins by opining that the Allied air raids had very little success in destroying Iraq's military and especially nuclear capabilities, but, owing to Allied victory on the ground, U.N. observers could succeed in finishing the job. Harping on this "analogy," Leshem concludes: "Israel alone can do very little to halt the Iranians. We could raid Iran from the air, but we cannot realistically expect that our aerial operations could destroy all their capabilities. At best, some Iranian nuclear installations could in this way be destroyed. But we couldn't reach their major centres of nuclear development, since that development has proceeded along three different lines in a fairly decentralized manner, with installations and factories scattered widely across the country. It is even reasonable to suppose that we will never know the locations of all their installations, just as we didn't know in Iraq's case."

Hence Leshem believes that Israel should make Iran fear Israeli nuclear weapons, but without hoping that it might deter it from developing their own; he proposes "to create the situation which would appear similar to that with Iraq before the Gulf crisis." He believes this could "stop the Ayatollahs, if this is what the world really wants." How to do it? "Iran claims sovereignty over three strategically located islands in the Gulf. Domination over those islands is capable of assuring domination not only over all the already active oilfields of the area, but also over all the natural gas sources not yet exploited. We should hope that, emulating Iraq, Iran would contest the Gulf Emirates and Saudi Arabia over these islands and, repeating Saddam Hussein's mistake in Kuwait, start a war. This may lead to an imposition of controls over Iranian nuclear developments the way it did in Iraq. This prospect is in my view quite likely, because patience plays no part in the Iranian mentality. But if they nevertheless refrain from starting a war, we should take advantage of their involvement in Islamic terrorism which already hurts the entire world. Israel has incontestable intelligence that the Iranians are terrorists. We should take advantage of this by persistently explaining to the world at large that by virtue of its involvement in terrorism, no other state is as dangerous to the entire world as Iran. I cannot comprehend why Libya has been hit by sanctions, to the point that sales of military equipment are barred to it because of its minor involvement in terrorism; while Iran, with its record of guiding terrorism against the entire world remains entirely free of even stricter sanctions." In true-blue Israeli style, Leshem attributes this lamentable state of affairs to Israel's neglect of its propaganda (called "Hasbara", that is, "Explanation"). He nevertheless hopes that Israel will soon be able "to explain to the world at large" how urgent is the need to provoke Iran to a war.

Provoking Iran into responding with war or measures just stopping short of war, is also elaborated by many other commentators. Let me just quote a story published by Telem Admon in Maariv(February 12) who reports that "a senior Israeli," that is, a senior Mossad agent, "about two weeks ago had a long conversation with the son of the late Shah, Prince Riza Sha'a Pahlevi' in order to appraise the man's possible usefulness for Israeli "Hasbara". In the "senior's" opinion, "Clinton's America is too absorbed in its domestic affairs," and as a result "the prince's chances of reigning in Iran are deplorably slim. The prince's face showed signs of distress after he heard a frank assessment to this effect from the mouth of an Israeli." Yet the "senior's" appraisal of the prince was distinctly negative, in spite of "the princely routine of handing to all visitors copies of articles by Ehud Ya'ari' (an Israeli television commentator suspected of being a front for Israeli Intelligence). Why? In the first place because "the prince shows how nervous he is. His knees jerked during the first half-hour of the conversation." Worse still, his chums "were dressed like hippies" while "he kept frequenting Manhattan's haunts in their company and addressing them as if they were his equals." The "senior" deplores it greatly that the prince has emancipated himself from the beneficial influence of his mother, "who had done a simply wonderful job travelling from capital to capital in order to impress everybody concerned with her hope to enthrone her son in Iran while she is still alive." Her valiant efforts look to me as connected, to some extent at least, to the no-less-valiant efforts of the Israeli "Hasbara" before it had written off her son.

But what might happen if both Israel and Iran have nuclear weapons? This question is being addressed by the Hebrew press at length, often in a manner intended to titillate the reader with anticipated horrors. Let me give a small sample. In At Hamishmar (19 February), Kaspi interviewed the notorious 'hawk', Professor Shlomo Aharonson, who begins his perorations by excoriating the Israeli left as a major obstacle to Israel's ability to resist Iranian evildoing. Without bothering about the left's current lack of political clout, says Aharonson: 'The left is full of prejudices and fears. It refuses to be rational on the nuclear issue. The left doesn't like nuclear weapons, full stop. The opposition of the Israeli left to nuclear weapons is reminiscent of the opposition to the invention of the wheel.' Profound insights, aren't they? After spelling them out, Aharonson proceeds to his 'scenarios'. Here is just one of them: 'If we established tomorrow a Palestinian state, we will really grant a sovereignty to an entity second to none in hostility toward us. This entity can be expected to reach a nuclear alliance with Iran at once. Suppose the Palestinians open hostilities against us and the Iranians deter us from retaliating against the Palestinians by threatening to retaliate in turn against us by nuclear means. What could we do then?' There is a lot more in the same vein before Aharonson concludes: 'We should see to it that no Palestinian state ever comes into being, even if Iranians threaten us with nuclear weapons. And we should also see to it that Iran lives in permanent fear of Israeli nuclear weapons being used against it."

Let me reiterate that the Israelis are also bombarded ceaselessly with official messages to the same effect. For example, General Ze'ev Livneh, the commander of recently established Rear General Command of the Israeli Army said (in Haaretz, February 15) that "it is not only Iran which already endangers every site in Israel," because, even if to a lesser extent, "Syria, Libya and Algeria do too." In order to protect Israel from this danger, General Livneh calls upon "the European Community to enforce jointly with Israel an embargo on any weaponry supplies to both Iran and those Arab states. The EC should also learn that military interventions can have salutary effects, as proven recently in Iraq's case."

Timid reminders by the Hebrew press that Israel continues to have the monopoly of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, were definitely unwelcome to Israeli authorities. In Hadashot of January 29 and February 5, Ran Edelist, careful to rely only on quotes from the U.S. press, raised the problem of nuclear waste disposal from the rather obsolete Dimona reactor and of other possible risks of that reactor to Israeli lives and limbs. He was "answered" by numerous interviews with named and unnamed experts, all of whom fiercely denied that any such risks existed. The experts didn't neglect to reassure their readers that the Israeli reactor was the best and the safest in the entire world. But speaking in the name of "the Intelligence Community" Immanuel Rosen (Maariv, February 12) went even further. He disclosed that the said "community" felt offended "by the self-confident publications of an Israeli researcher dealing with nuclear subjects. This researcher has recently been found by the Intelligence Community to pose 'a security risk,' to the point of observing that in some states such a researcher 'would have been made to disappear.'" Ran Edelist reacted in a brief note (in Hadashot, February 14), confining himself to quoting these revealing ideas of "the Intelligence Community," and drawing attention to threats voiced there. But apart from Edelist, the press of "the only democracy in the Middle East" either didn't dare comment, or was not allowed to.

The press is allowed, and even encouraged, to discuss one issue related to Israeli nuclear policies: to say how clever Peres was in pretending to agree to negotiate nuclear disarmament and then raising unacceptable conditions for entering any such negotiations. An example of this is Akiva Eldar's coverage in Haaretz (February 19), of Rabin's excoriation of Egypt on television a few days earlier. Rabin scolded Egypt for suggesting that a Middle East regional nuclear disarmament agreement would be desirable. Eldar comments that "The Prime Minister is known to loathe anything that relates to Egypt. Aiming at Boutros Ghali, he said [in a public speech]: 'What can you expect of him? Isn't he an Egyptian?' Rabin is particularly averse to Egyptian insistence that the Middle East should be completely denuclearized. Peres, by contrast, favours using Egypt as an intermediary in various diplomatic pursuits, while recognizing that Cairo's reminders on the subject of Dimona obstruct his real mission, which is to mediate between Egypt and the grand man in Jerusalem." Therefore, after "Egypt recently invited Israel to a symposium that 'would deal with both conventional and non-conventional armed confrontations,' a high-level discussion was held in the Foreign Ministry on how to pretend to accept the invitation and then 'to decline it elegantly.' The solution was to communicate to Egypt the Israeli agreement in principle to attend the symposium on three conditions: that it be chaired by the U.S. and Russia; that its agenda be unanimously determined by the chairmen and all the participants; and, most interestingly, that nothing be discussed unless the presence of all other Arab states, not just of Syria and Lebanon, but also--hard to believe--of Libya and Iraq, be assured in advance. In this way, any conceivable discussion of nuclear affairs was effectively precluded." I find it superfluous to comment on Eldar's story.

But I do want to make some comments on the incitement of Israelis against Iran. I am well aware that a lot of expert opinions and predictions quoted here will sound to non-lsraeli readers like fantasy running amok. Yet I perceive those opinions and predictions, no matter how mendacious and deceitful they obviously are, as politically quite meaningful. Let me explain my reasons. In the first place, I have not quoted the opinions of raving extremists. I was careful to select only the writings of respected and influential Israeli experts or commentators on strategic affairs, who can be presumed to be well acquainted with the thinking of the Israeli Security System. Since militarily Israel is the strongest state in the Middle East and has the monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region, strategical doctrines of its Security System deserve to be disseminated world-wide, especially when they are forcefully pressed upon the Israeli public. Whether one likes it or not, Israel is a great power, not only in military but also in political terms, by virtue of its increasing influence upon U.S. policies. The opinions of the Israeli Security System may mean something different from what they say. But this doesn't detract from their importance.

But there is more to it. Fantasy and madness in the doctrines of the Israeli Security System are nothing new. At least since the early 1950s those qualities could already be noticed. Let us just recall that in 1956 Ben-Gurion wanted to annex Sinai to Israel on the ground that "it was not Egypt." The same doctrine was professed in 1967-73 with elaborations, such as the proposal of several generals to conquer Alexandria in order to hold the city hostage until Egypt would sign a peace treaty on Israeli terms. The 1982 invasion of Lebanon relied on fantastic assumptions, and so did the 1983 "peace treaty" signed with a "lawful Lebanese government" put in power by Sharon. All Israeli policies in the Territories are not just totally immoral, but also rely on assumptions steadily held and advocated without regard for their fanciful contents. It will suffice to recall how Rabin together with the entire Israeli Security System perceived the outbreak of the Intifada first as an Iranian manipulation and then as a fabrication of western television and press. They concluded that if the Arabs are denied opportunities to fake riots in order to be photographed, the unrest in the Territories could be suppressed with ease.

Relevant to this is the fact that Israeli policies bear the easily recognizable imprint of Orientalist "expertise" abounding in militarist and racist ideological prejudices. This 'expertise" is readily available in English, since its harbingers were the Jewish Orientalists living in English-speaking countries, like Bernard Lewis or the late Elie Kedourie who had visited Israel regularly for hobnobbing on the best of terms with the Israeli Security System. It was Kedourie who performed a particularly seminal role in fathering the assumptions on which Israeli policies rest and who consequently had in Israel a lot of influence. In Kedourie's view, the peoples of the Middle East, with the "self-evident" exception of Israel, would be best off if ruled by foreign imperial powers with a natural capacity to rule for a long time yet. Kedourie believed that the entire Middle East could be ruled by foreign powers with perfect ease, because their domination would hardly be opposed except by grouplets of intellectuals bent on rabble-rousing. Kedourie lived in Britain, and his primary concern was British politics. In his opinion the British refused to continue to rule the Middle East, with calamitous effects, only because of intellectual corruption of their own experts, especially those from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at Chatham House, who were misguided enough to dismiss the superior expertise of minority nationals, particularly Jewish, from the Arab world, who alone had known "the Arab nature" at first hand. For example, in his first book, Kedourie says that as early as 1932 (!) the British government was misguided enough to grant Iraq independence (it was faked, but never mind) against the advice of Jewish community in Baghdad. On many occasions during his recurrent visits to Israel, from the 1960s until his death, Kedourie would assure his Israeli audiences (one of which I was a member) that Iraq could "really" be still ruled by the British with ease, under whatever disguises it would be convenient to adopt, provided the grouplets of rabble-rousers would be dealt with by a modicum of salutary toughness. That, the opportunities for education would be restricted so as not to produce a superfluous number of intellectuals, prone to learn the western notions of national independence. True, Kedourie also opposed the idea of exclusive Jewish right to the Land of Israel as incompatible with his imperialistic outlook, but he favoured the retention of Israeli permanent rule over the Palestinians. The rather incongruous blend of Kedourie's ideas with the Land of Israel messianism is already an innovation of Israeli Security System vintage.

The implications of the Kedourie doctrine for Israeli policy-makers are obvious. First, Israel always seeks to persuade the West about what its "true" interests and "moral duties" in the Middle East are. It also tells the West that by intervening in the Middle East they would serve the authentic interests of Middle Eastern nations. But if the western powers refuse to listen, it is up to Israel to assume "the white man's burden."

Another implication of Kedourie's doctrine, acted upon by Israel since the early 1950s already, is that in the Middle East no other strong state is to be tolerated. Its power must be destroyed or at least diminished through a war. Iranian theocracy may have its utility for the Israeli Hasbara, but Nasser's Egypt was attacked while being emphatically secular. In both cases the real reason for the Israeli threat to start a war was the strength of the state concerned. Quite apart from the risks such a state may pose to Israeli hegemonic ambitions, Orientalist "expertise" requires that natives of the region always remain weak, to be ruled always by their traditional notables but not by persons with intellectual capacity, whether religious or secular. Before World War I, such principles were taken for granted in the West, professed openly and applied globally, from China to Mexico. Israeli Orientalism, on which Israeli policies are based, is no more than their belated replica. It continues to uphold dogmas which, say in 1903, were taken for granted as "scientific" truths. The subsequent "troubles" of the West are perceived by the Israeli "experts" as a well-deserved punishment for listening to intellectuals who had been casting doubt on such self-evident truths. Without such rotten intellectuals, everything would have remained stable.

Let us return to the special case of Iran, though. Anyone not converted to the Orientalistic creed will recognize that Iran is a country very difficult to conquer, because of its size, topography and especially because of fervent nationalism combined with the religious zeal of its populace. I happen to loathe the current Iranian regime, but it doesn't hinder me from immediately noticing how different it is from Saddam Hussein's. Popular support for Iran's rulers is much greater than for Iraq's. After Saddam Hussein had invaded Iran, his troops were resisted valiantly under extremely difficult conditions. All analogies between a possible attack on Iran and the Gulf War are therefore irresponsibly fanciful. Yet Sharon and the Israeli Army commanders did in 1979 propose to send a detachment of Israeli paratroopers to Tehran to quash the revolution and restore the monarchy. They really thought, until stopped by Begin, that a few Israeli paratroopers could determine the history of a country as immense and populous as Iran! According to a consensus of official Israeli experts on Iranian affairs, the fall of the Shah was due solely to his "softness" in refraining to order his army to slaughter thousands of demonstrators wholesale. Later, the Israeli experts on Iranian affairs were no less unanimous in predicting a speedy defeat of Iran by Saddam Hussein. No evidence indicates that they have changed their assumptions or discarded their underlying racism. Their ranks may include some relatively less-opinionated individuals, who have survived the negative selection process which usually occurs within groups sharing such ideologically-tight imageries. But such individuals can be assumed to prefer to keep their moderation to themselves, while hoping that Israel can reap some fringe benefits from any western provocation against Iran, even if it results in a protracted and inconclusive war.

Israel Shahak
February 24, 1993

[bold text by Hotel Terminus]

Amnesty Nederland en "hét opinieblad over mensenrechten"

2011-10-29T00:09:00.002+02:00

Een lezer emailde mij het volgende:

Heb je dit al gezien?

Drie pagina’s Voordewind-promotie in het novembernummer van Amnesty's Wordt
Vervolgd (één pagina is een foto van de man, begonnen bij de PvdA). Het
artikel begint met de stelling dat aan zijn betrokkenheid bij mensenrechten
niemand hoeft te twijfelen. En heeft als kop ‘Toen wij meeregeerden was het
beleid menselijk’. Aan het eind gaat het over Israel (speciale band).

Alles van Israel praat hij in dat slot goed vanwege ‘vijandige buurlanden en
groepen’. Er volgt geen kritische vraag van de interviewer over de 500.000
kolonisten met hun landroof, over de Gazaslachting en het Goldstonerapport,
over gevangenen, ... Of over het Irakrapport.

Op het internet blijft Amnesty Nederland echter bescheiden met de promotie van een politicus die o.a. de dood van honderden Palestijnse kinderen "gerechtvaardigd" noemt.

Wordt Vervolgd, "hét opinieblad over mensenrechten", "is het journalistiek onafhankelijke maandblad van Amnesty International."

» Steun Amnesty Nederland en boek een hotel in een Israëlische nederzetting

Meer over Joel Voordewind en ChristenUnie, en hoe zij over mensenrechten denken:
» Arie Slob spreekt voor financierders van illegale nederzettingen
» André Rouvoet, extremist
» Wee jullie, huichelaars van de ChristenUnie
» Christenunie pist op mensenrechten
» Nederlandse christenen steunen nederzettingen van Israël
» RefDag: Israëlparagraaf ChristenUnieprogram "evenwichtiger"
» Joël Voordewind verblijft in illegale nederzetting
» Nederland, Kanaän en 'de joodse staat'

TRANSLATE

Arie Slob spreekt voor financierders van illegale nederzettingen

2011-10-28T23:12:00.002+02:00

Arie Slob (fractievoorzitter ChristenUnie) is op woensdag 30 november 2011 gastspreker bij de Nederlandse financierders van de illegale joodse nederzettingen op de Westelijke Jordaanoever. Genaamd het Ondernemersplatform 'Werken aan de Toekomst'.
http://nijkerk.nieuws.nl/nieuws/43676

Eerder meldde Slob dat hij "begrip" had voor de dood van o.a. honderden Palestijnse kinderen, een actie die hij "gerechtvaardigd" en "legitiem" noemde.

ChristenUnie-voorman Arie Slob is deze week in Israël, waar "iedereen het erover eens is dat de aanval op Gaza legitiem is". Ook Slob zelf twijfelt daar niet aan. "Ik heb begrip voor de onvermijdelijkheid van deze aanval."

Slob is er na gesprekken met Israëliërs persoonlijk van overtuigd geraakt dat de strijd die Israël voert in Gaza gerechtvaardigd is. "Ik heb begrip voor de onvermijdelijkheid van deze aanval.

"André Rouvoet heeft eens gezegd: een vriend van Israël moet ook kritiek kunnen leveren. Daar ben ik het nog steeds mee eens. Maar als het gaat om Gaza, is het wat mij betreft evident dat het ingrijpen van Israël te rechtvaardigen is."

(Nederlands Dagblad, 6 januari 2009, gehele tekst hier)

TRANSLATE

Wat is een Palestijn waard, meneer de minister?

2011-10-22T10:22:00.001+02:00

Uri Rosenthal weet het misschien, onze Expert in Evenwicht. De minister voor Buitenlandse Zaken blokkeerde onlangs in zijn eentje een gezamenlijke verklaring van de 27 EU-lidstaten, die was bedoeld om de vredesbesprekingen uit het moeras te trekken. Volgens Rosenthal was deze tekst onevenwichtig en buiten proportie: om te beginnen werden de wandaden van zowel Palestijnen als Israëli’s aan de kaak gesteld. Daarnaast verwees de tekst naar een twééstatenoplossing.

Nu wordt dat plan al bijna 45 jaar door de Verenigde Naties (kortom de gehele wereld) bepleit als de enige acceptabele, rechtvaardige oplossing voor het Midden-Oostenconflict. Evenwichtiger dan dat wordt het niet, zou je zeggen; legaler evenmin. Maar gelukkig is Uri ‘Geller’ Rosenthal er nog, de man die alles krombuigt tot het recht lijkt. Hij vond het een groot onrecht dat naast de Palestijnen ook de Israëli’s de maat werd gemeten, terwijl zij toch alleen maar de bezetters in dit verhaal zijn.

Evenwicht in het Nederlands beleid: een snelcursus.

1. Stel, Hamas blijkt in 2006 de onbetwiste winnaar van eerlijke Palestijnse verkiezingen. De partij komt aan de macht. Wat doe je dan? Je stelt een totale boycot in – die lui accepteren immers de grenzen van 1967 niet. Je zet anderhalf miljoen burgers gevangen op een gebied zo groot als twee keer Texel, onthoudt hun elk contact met de buitenwereld, en wacht tot ze genuanceerder leren stemmen.
Dat is de linkerschaal van de balans.

2. Maar dan. Na de Israëlische verkiezingen van 2009 worden ook daar twee extremistische partijen opgenomen in de regering: Israël Ons Thuis en Shas. Geen van beide Israëlische partijen accepteert de grenzen van 1967, ze streven naar een etnisch zuiver, joods Israël met behoud van de nederzettingen. Dus wat doe je dan?
Dan ga je over tot intensieve samenwerking. Het is precies wat Rosenthal op zijn eerste dienstreis naar Israël voorstelde aan zijn ambtgenoot, minister Lieberman.

Nu is Lieberman de voorman van Israël Ons Thuis. Toen enkele jaren geleden een groep Palestijnse gevangenen zou worden vrijgelaten, opperde hij de mogelijkheid om in plaats daarvan alle Palestijnse gevangenen in de Dode Zee te verdrinken. Hijzelf was bereid de bussen te regelen. Bij een andere gelegenheid had Lieberman geëist dat Arabisch-Israëlische parlementsleden geëxecuteerd zouden worden. Toch zag minister Verhagen er indertijd geen graten in hem in Nederland te ontvangen, en voor zijn opvolger Rosenthal is het vandaag eveneens business as usual.
Zeer weinig landen hebben de kolonist Lieberman (hij woont in een illegale
nederzetting) willen ontvangen. Internationaal een persona non grata – behalve hier. Bij ons valt met racisten te praten.
Dat is de rechterschaal van de balans.

Maar nu komt het. Volgens Uri’s Wetten van Evenwicht past in de rechterschaal namelijk nog veel meer. Zo heeft Hamas inmiddels herhaaldelijk aangegeven een Palestijnse staat binnen de grenzen van 1967 te accepteren. Dit feit wordt door Israël (en dus ook door Nederland) consequent verdoezeld en genegeerd teneinde nooit met wie dan ook te hoeven praten. En waarover zou je ook? Want wat blijkt: géén van de grote Israëlische politieke partijen – of het nu Israël Ons Thuis betreft, Shas, Likud, de Arbeiderspartij of Kadima – neemt in het partijprogramma 1967 op als uitgangspunt voor de grenzen van Israël. Integendeel: Likud verdedigt in zijn statuten open en bloot de Groot-Israël-gedachte. Met Netanyahu valt dus sowieso over niets te onderhandelen. En als de Israëlische premier in het Amerikaans congres luid en duidelijk verkondigt dat hij een terugkeer naar de grenzen van ’67 totaal verwerpt en daarmee de Palestijnen elk perspectief op een levensvatbare staat ontneemt, houdt Nederland zijn mondje dicht.
Ook als Geert Wilders in Israël voor deportatie van de Palestijnen pleit, zwijgt dit kabinet. Die Wilders toch, met zijn malle oproepen tot etnische zuivering. Die zit écht niet in de regering hoor.

Rosenthal protesteert pas als een moegetergde president Abbas bij de VN een aanvraag indient tot erkenning van de staat Palestina, binnen de internationaal erkende grenzen, conform het internationaal recht.

Rosenthal was het ook, die tegen alle internationale richtlijnen in zijn ambtenaren opdroeg voortaan niet meer over de ‘bezette gebieden’ te spreken, maar over ‘betwiste gebieden’. Dat klinkt al een stuk gebalanceerder.

Kijk, dat de minister zelf is getrouwd met een Israëli, dat in de fractiekamer van de PVV prominent een reusachtige Israëlische vlag hangt en dat het huidige regeerakkoord slechts één buitenland met name noemt (‘Nederland wil verder investeren in de band met Israël.’) – dat doet natuurlijk allemaal niet ter zake. Maar er is stilaan wel héél veel evenwicht in Nederland.
Uri Rosenthal, onze man in Groot-Israël.

Wat is een Palestijn eigenlijk waard, meneer de minister? En wat is een Israëli u waard? Het is uw vak, diplomatieke verhoudingen, dus u weet dat soort dingen.
Anders zal ik het zeggen. Duizend tegen één. Dat is de wisselkoers in het Midden-Oosten.
Met de stilzwijgende steun van de ene na de andere Nederlandse regering zijn de kansen op een rechtvaardige vrede stilaan verkeken. En met de hulp van dit kabinet nadert een decennialange kolonisatie nu haar voltooiing. Nog een paar jaren treiteren en volbouwen, maar dan heb je ook wat. Dan doemt eindelijk, alsnog, in oudtestamentische glorie voor ons op: ‘een land zonder volk voor een volk zonder land’.

Een Palestijn is vandaag eenduizendste mens. Nog even, en dan de diaspora: opgelost, weg.

Evenwicht.

Fraaist van al blijft deze prestatie: Israël is er, mede dankzij het Nederlands beleid, in geslaagd de Israëli’s voor te stellen als de slachtoffers van deze bezetting. Palestijnen die ondanks alles blijven hameren op het internationaal recht worden nu behandeld als rigide dromers, of beter nog: als extremisten (ik zie de brieven alweer verschijnen, waarin ik voor antisemiet word uitgemaakt). En terwijl de Israëlische regering jammert over een gebrek aan gesprekspartners, bouwt ze maar door op Palestijnse grond, blijft ze het westen maar chanteren, als vormde het land een vuurtoren van verlicht humanisme in een zee van vijandig extremisme. Intussen is vrijwel geheel historisch Palestina nu geannexeerd.

Wij gedogen het, zoals wij in eigen land Geert Wilders gedogen en er intensief mee samenwerken. Wij gedogen de schepping van Über-en Untermenschen.

Anders valt niet te verklaren dat joodse kolonisten op Palestijnen mogen schieten als wild wanneer deze hun olijven gaan oogsten, dat een leger witte fosfor uitstrooit over burgers, dat het scholen met vluchtelingen bombardeert, non-stop Palestijnse huizen vernietigt en een radeloos volk domweg laat creperen – zonder dat iemand dit stopt.

Israël streeft naar een land voor joden en enkel joden. Nederland heeft als bevriende natie Israël altijd de hand boven het hoofd gehouden in een beleid van moedwillige zuivering. De conclusie moet luiden dat onze regering gelooft in mensen en ondermensen. En zo niet – Doe Dan Iets, meneer Rosenthal.

Intensiveer de tegenwerking en dwing voor één keer evenwicht af.

Bron: NRC Handelsblad, via Wij Blijven Hier

TRANSLATE

Khadaffi en zijn zonen gelyncht

2011-10-21T14:47:00.003+02:00

Het lijkt alsof ik een van weinigen ben die niet staat te juichen bij de gruwelijke beelden. Want nu gaat de dictator, en zijn twee zonen, met al zijn geheimen en de namen van collaborerende bedrijven en politici het graf in. Ik ga er ook van uit dat dit de bedoeling was, dat alles in het werk moest worden gesteld om de mannen te verhinderen ooit in een (internationale) rechtzaal te laten spreken. Net als de eveneens gelynchte Saddam Hoessein, en de geliquideerde Osama Bin Laden.
In Nederland doen we dat anders. Neem de AIVD-informant Frans van Anraat, daar zal een deal mee gemaakt zijn. Dat was eenvoudig, aangezien hij er na zijn protest van de Hoge Raad, die hem weliswaar vrijsprak van genocide, nog eens twee jaar bij kreeg. Een rechtbank is een uitstekend middel om iemand de mond te snoeren. In een dictatuur. Nog nooit iemand zo stilletjes en gedwee zeventien jaar de gevangenis in zien gaan.

De Nederlandse massamedia zou niet de officiële werkelijkheid berichten wanneer het zou melden dat, zoals iedere beetje journalist overduidelijk heeft kunnen constateren, Khadaffi niet "gedood" is, maar gelyncht. De reactie is dezelfde als wanneer het Westen in andere werelddelen mensen niet oppakt en berecht, maar liquideert. Dat komt omdat onze media slaafs de consensus volgen, in deze dat Westerse landen en legers altijd beschaafd en rechtmatig handelen. Onder geen beding mag bekend worden dat wij net zulke barbaren zijn als de rest van de wereld.

De Ubermensch-ideologie van de nazi's was heus geen waanvoorstelling van een krankzinnige - maar louter een wat uitgebreider geformuleerd idee over de suprematie van het blanke ras, dat al eeuwen gemeengoed was in Europa. Vele jaren eerder dan Adolf Hitler stelde Winston Churchill als minister van Binnenlandse Zaken voor om ongeveer 100.000 "mentaal gedegenereerden" te steriliseren, en enkele duizenden in werkkampen op te sluiten, teneinde "het Engelse ras" zuiver te houden.

Maar onze commerciële massamedia heeft geen geheugen, en een bericht in historische context zetten is vrijwel taboe geworden voor journalisten. De premisse van de dood van Khadaffi is dus dat hij niet op barbaarse wijze gelyncht is, maar "gedood" en "omgebracht" is, in de context dat het zijn verdiende loon was, en dat we iets te vieren hebben. En een ieder die het niet met de lynchpartij eens is wordt als marginale eenling of idioot weggezet.

De Overgangsraad gaat nu "gezamelijk werken aan een vreedzame toekomst voor Libië", hoor ik de presentator van het NOS-journaal zeggen. Ik vrees echter dat we de komende jaren nog veel lynchpartijen zullen gaan zien in Libië. En het zou mij niet verbazen wanneer het beschaafde Westen de enige is die daar beter van wordt.

TRANSLATE

The Deal Behind the "Shalit Deal": Prisoners, Power, Racism

2011-10-20T08:36:00.001+02:00

Jadaliyya | By Toufic Haddad | 17.10.2011 | NEDERLANDS

If the prisoner exchange deal announced on 11 October 2011 between Hamas and the Israeli government is fully implemented without major hitches, there is little question who “won” this five-year war of wills: the deal will constitute a major victory for Hamas and the resistance-oriented political forces in Palestinian society, while simultaneously representing a significant retreat for Israel and its historical doctrines of forceful coercion and rejectionism vis-à-vis the Palestinian people and their rights.

Make no mistake about it, the tangible accomplishments and historical precedents embodied in this deal rival, if not exceed, other prisoner deals in recent memory. This does not mean that the deal was able to fulfill all expectations placed upon it. Nor does it discount the heavy price Palestinian society and political forces played to realize it. Nor again does it avoid complicated concessions by Hamas in the final conditions placed on the release of some prisoners. All this withstanding, this deal should be recognized as a major Hamas victory; any alternative interpretation of this scorecard misreads the basic balance of forces between Palestinians and their occupier in the context of the struggle to achieve Palestinian rights.

How do we read the “Shalit deal” and assess its achievements, or otherwise, for the Palestinian movement? What are the criteria by which such deals can be judged and analyzed in the first place? In order to answer these questions and appreciate more fully the dynamics at play, it is necessary to gain a command of the facts of the deal, from which a firmer assessment can be based.

The Facts

Presuming a successful prisoner release takes place based upon the official list of prisoners published by both sides at midnight 16 October 2011, the totality of this deal looks as follows:

In exchange for the release of Israeli army Staff Sergeant Gilad Shalit, who has been held by Hamas since 25 June 2006, Israel will release a total of 1050 prisoners in three stages.

The first stage of the release actually took place in September 2009 when Israel released twenty-three prisoners in exchange for a Hamas-broadcast video indicating a “sign of life” from Shalit. These prisoners included twenty women and three men from the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

The agreed-upon remaining 1027 prisoners are to be released in two stages. The first major stage, scheduled to take place on 18 October 2011, will see Israel release 477 prisoners, including 450 men and twenty-seven women prisoners. These prisoners were the subject of the fiercest negotiations, with each prisoner’s fate discussed via indirect negotiations between the contending parties, beneath Egyptian and previously German mediation.

The second and final stage of the deal will take place in two months, entailing the release of 550 prisoners. These prisoners will be released based on a basic set of criteria agreed upon by Hamas and Israel, with the former asserting some discretion over the selection of names. In other words, Israel cannot just arrest 550 people one day, then release them the next, and say they have fulfilled their obligations.

Prisoners released during the first major stage, and which we are limited to discussing at this time, are subject to certain negotiated conditions:

218 will be released to their homes without any conditions (including 133 to Gaza; sixty-eight to the West Bank; nine to East Jerusalem; seven to inside Israel, including one to the Occupied Golan Heights; and one to Jordan);
204 will be deported, including forty abroad, rumored to be sent to Turkey, Qatar, Syria and Jordan. Of these, 164 will be taken to Gaza, eighteen of whom will be able to return to their homes in the West Bank within three years;
fifty-five will be released with some form of security arrangement, the nature of which has yet to be fully disclosed. This includes forty-nine to the West Bank and six to Jerusalem.

With this as the basic outline of the agreement, “crunching” the data reveals additional aspects worth highlighting.

“Quality” of Prisoners

Hamas was remarkably successfully in forcing Israel to release large numbers of prisoners with high prison sentences. In fact, 315 of the 477 prisoners released in the first major round have life sentences (310 men, five women); 144 prisoners have sentences longer than ten years; only nine prisoners have sentences less than ten years; and nine other prisoners have undetermined sentences, be they administrative detainees, or yet to be convicted.

The impressive depth of this deal is best illustrated by adding up the total number of years erased by the deal, at least on paper.

Of the 315 prisoners due to be released who are serving life sentences, a little more than half (163) have multiple life sentences (ranging from two to thirty-six). They total 926 life sentences all together. To get a sense of how much prison time this adds up to, Israeli civilian courts set one “life sentence” at twenty-five years of prison time. Aside from the few cases of Palestinians tried in these courts—generally because they are Israeli citizens—most Palestinian prisoners do not have recourse to this interpretation of “life sentence” because they are tried in military courts where the duration of life sentences is left open ended. If an Israeli civil court understanding for a life sentence (twenty-five years) is nonetheless applied to the number of Palestinians sentenced to life in prison, we arrive at the figure of 23,150 years negated through this deal. It needs to be emphasized that this figure is only for illustrative purposes, as, in any case, a prisoner would not be able to serve more than three of these life sentences (seventy-five years) in a given life time. Moreover, a certain portion of these years has already been served, and cannot hence be “erased.”

In addition to those serving life sentences, however, the total number of years of those serving high but non-life prison sentences totals just over 4,585 years.

If both figures are added together, a staggering 27,735 years are technically negated by the deal. All this from less than half the total number of prisoners released (roughly 45 percent).

Period of Imprisonment

The Shalit deal sees Palestinian prisoners released from historical periods that date back to before the first intifada, to the most recent period of Palestinian history: forty prisoners were arrested before the first intifada (pre-8 December 1987); 112 were arrested during the first intifada (December 1987 – 13 September 1993); eighty-one were arrested during the “Oslo peace process” years (September 1997 - 28 September 2000); and the remaining 244 are from the second intifada (September 2000 - present).

Political Orientation

According to Israeli Prison Services, the political distribution of prisoners to be released is as follows: 307 prisoners are from Hamas, ninety-nine from Fatah, twenty-seven from the Islamic Jihad, and twenty-four from the Popular Front. The remaining prisoners derive from smaller factions (mainly the Democratic Front, the Popular Resistance Committees, and the Popular Front-General Command), or are unaffiliated with any political group.

Demographic Distribution

Released prisoners hail from all geographic locations within historic Palestine including 289 from the West Bank, 134 from Gaza, forty-six from East Jerusalem, and eight from Palestinian communities inside Israel, including one from the occupied Golan Heights. Among the West Bankers is one woman who resided in Jordan, and a second who is Ukrainian, but lives in the West Bank.

Analysis: The Accomplishments

Passing judgment on the Shalit deal cannot take place from a detached precipice of moral or political purity but, rather, must derive from an appreciation for the basic balance of forces at play between the contending parties and their historical precedents in relations between one another. There are no absolute criteria for judging such matters, with interests and needs within each negotiating party variegated, subject to shifts over time, and difficult to quantify to begin with.

For this reason, it is helpful to begin analyzing the Shalit deal by understanding that before Shalit’s capture, Israel refused to recognize Hamas as a legitimate political entity; this non-recognition continued despite the Hamas victory in democratic elections in 2006. Israel subsequently refused all formal interaction with Hamas, encouraging other countries to do the same. Soon after Shalit’s capture, Israel’s Prime Minister's Bureau reiterated this stance, asserting, “There will be no negotiations to release prisoners…The government of Israel will not give in to extortion by the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas government, which are headed by murderous terror organizations. The Palestinian Authority bears full responsibility for the welfare of Gilad Shalit and for returning him to Israel in good condition.”

In this respect, the very sealing of a deal with Hamas was a major Israeli concession. Israel sought every possible way to retrieve Shalit without having to negotiate, but failed. The weeks after the capture of Shalit witnessed more than 400 Palestinians killed in Israel’s “Operation Summer Rains” in a failed effort to retrieve him. Israel’s massive offensive “Operation Cast lead” in December 2008/January 2009, which left 1400 Palestinians dead, also put the recovery of Shalit as a central objective of the mission. The siege of Gaza is still justified as necessary in the context of Shalit’s continued detention.

All of this was part and parcel of a broader Israeli strategy vis-à-vis Palestinians which entailed not only the historic rejection of all Palestinian political rights, but an on-the-ground military doctrine which holds that “might makes right,” Israel has a “long arm of justice,” and Israel will “burn into [Palestinian] consciousness” their own defeat.

Viewed in this context, Shalit’s capture and detention for five years, and Hamas’ ultimate successful negotiation for a prisoner release are all the more impressive. The deal represents the first time that any Palestinian organization captured an Israeli soldier in territorial Palestine and was able to translate this capture into a negotiated settlement with the Israeli government. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this as a tactic, there is no question that this series of events represents a significant advance for the armed resistance capabilities of the Palestinian movement, its organizational capabilities, professionalism, secrecy and stamina. No other conclusion is possible in the context of Gaza, where Israel and Egypt control its land passages; Israel controls and constantly monitors the territory via air, satellite and sea, and where electromagnetic airwaves and telecommunication networks are also dominated by Israel. Moreover, Israel also runs a substantial network of Palestinian collaborators throughout the area. These are the known means of Israeli domination over the Gaza Strip’s 360 square kilometers.

All these accomplishments relate to the fact that a deal took place, and do not relate to the substantial achievements in the negotiations themselves. But here, too, Hamas forced impressive concessions: it broke Israel’s traditional refusal to release alleged “prisoners with blood on their hands,” and it broke Israel’s principled rejection to release prisoners from 1948 Palestine (Palestinians holding Israeli citizenship) as well as those from East Jerusalem. To contextualize the latter two precedents, all previous prisoner releases negotiated with the Palestinian Authority and Hizbullah have failed to break these formerly steadfast Israeli positions.

Aside from setting new precedents in negotiations, Hamas’ selection of prisoners emphasized important political dimensions that must also be seen as important achievements, while rejecting certain Israeli tenets of praxis vis-à-vis the Palestinian people.

The deal’s inclusion of prisoners from throughout geographic Palestine, the Palestinian diaspora, and the occupied Golan Heights represents a conscious effort by Hamas to assert the unity of the Palestinian people and their connectedness to its Arab/ Muslim periphery. The inclusion of prisoners from across the Palestinian political spectrum equally asserts the national, as opposed to factional, accomplishment of the deal. Inclusion of prisoners from the pre-first intifada period to the present also emphasizes the cross-generational nature of Palestinian struggle, while implicitly criticizing the Oslo “peace process’’ failure to release prisoners from these early periods.

Although it is complicated to compare prisoner releases given the shifting nature of interests and needs at given times, suffice it to say that Hamas achieved as much as or more than many of the most well-known prisoner deals carried out with Israel in the past 30 years: the 1985 prisoner exchange between the PFLP-General Command and Israel saw 1150 prisoners exchanged for three live Israeli soldiers; the 2004 Hizbullah-Israel swap saw Israel release 431 Arab and international prisoners and fifty-nine bodies for one live and three dead Israeli military personnel; the 2008 Hizbullah-Israel deal saw the exchange of 204 Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners for two dead Israeli soldiers. All other exchanges were less significant quantitatively and “qualitatively.” It might be illustrative to note that Hizbullah’s first successful prisoner exchange with Israel saw the exchange of two Israeli bodies and nineteen South Lebanon Army personnel for 123 bodies and forty-five prisoners. The Shalit deal was Hamas’ first exchange but likely not to be its last.

Criticisms

The Shalit deal is not without its critics from the Palestinian side. They can be grouped into three categories:

Unfulfilled expectations: Hamas and the two other groups which engaged in the capture of Shalit (the Popular Resistance Committees and the Army of Islam) initially demonstrated forms of bombastic euphoria in the wake of their success, which led them to raise the ceiling of expectations within Palestinian society as to what could be achieved from a future prisoner exchange deal. Not only were high political representatives like Fatah’s Marwan Barghouti and PFLP’s Ahmed Sa’adat expected to be on the list, but the total numbers of prisoners demanded was at one stage set at 1400. Moreover, Hamas made claims that all female prisoners would be released (nine appear to be left out), and that all child prisoners would be released (it remains to be seen whether this criteria is met in the deal’s second major stage).

Conditions of release: The high number of deportees (204), be they sent abroad (forty) or to Gaza (164) drew criticism for touching upon a sensitive nerve in Palestinian society. Political exile was consistently practiced by Israel throughout the occupied territories since 1967 as a means of punishment, as well as weakening the national movement by detaching it from its organic leadership. That Hamas would agree to forms of total or partial deportation at all, and in such large numbers, opened the movement up to criticism that it was an accomplice to strategic Israeli objectives. Because of the sensitivity of this concern, Hamas emphasized its consultation with prisoners over the issue of deportation, while hinting that all external deportees will be able to return to Gaza, at least, via the territory’s land crossings with Egypt. The issue of whether all prisoners were indeed consulted remains an open question, as it seems likely that some prisoners were consulted, while others were not.

Political timing: Hamas opened itself to additional criticism on two fronts regarding the deal’s timing. Coming scarcely three weeks after PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’ bid for Palestinian statehood at the UN, Hamas was criticized, particularly by elements of Fatah, for attempting to steal Abbas’ “thunder.” Furthermore, the deal also came on the eleventh day of a major Palestinian hunger strike protesting prison conditions, particularly the policy of sustained solitary confinement (up to eight years and counting in some cases). Critics argue that the prisoner exchange is out of step and poorly coordinated with the hunger strike, while the celebratory atmosphere the prisoner exchange ushers in contradicts the seriousness demanded of the hunger strike. Concerned parties even argue that the poor timing may contribute to endangering some of the hunger strikers’ lives, or breaking the strike early without achieving its demands.

Conclusions and Fallout

While the validity of these criticisms will reveal themselves over time, the political fallout of the Shalit deal can already be stated: Hamas and its agenda are unquestionably bolstered by the deal, enabling it to mitigate any popularity gap that might have arisen between the movement and its rival Fatah in the wake of the latter’s UN statehood bid. This is because Hamas will be able to argue that while Fatah makes grandiose speeches at the UN and is welcomed in international fora, its strategy (political negotiations with Israel) failed to ever achieve a substantive prisoner release, and hence Fatah cannot be expected to achieve the far larger goal of statehood. Hamas will argue that despite it pariah status by the Western powers, the movement remained steadfast in its non-recognition of Israel and its resistance-oriented strategy to achieve Palestinian rights, and in the end reaped tangible, political and human rewards of value to the movement and its future.

While debating these issues is indeed important and necessary for the Palestinian movement and its allies, the real political legacy of this deal might be more obvious than this simplified polarity suggests. That is to say that for any political strategy pursued by Palestinians and their allies to succeed, the enormous disparity in the “valuation” between Palestinian and Israeli people and prisoners of war needs to end. That one single Israeli soldier could be negotiated for more than one thousand Palestinians gives pause to question how a situation arose locally and internationally where such disparity of value became possible.

To illustrate this disparity, suffice it to say that twenty-six Palestinian prisoners in the Shalit deal were already in prison before Gilad Shalit was even born, with the longest amongst them—Nael Barghouti–having served thirty-four years in prison. In fact, ten Palestinian prisoners expected to be freed in this deal spent more time in Israeli prison than Nelson Mandela spent on Robben Island, although not one of them is known to non-Arabic-speaking publics. Not one of them—Sami Yunis, Fuad al-Razem, Uthman Musalah, Hasan Salama, Akram Mansour, Fakhri Barghouti, Ibrahim Jaber, Muhammad Abu Hud'a, Nael Barghouti, and Salim Kiyal—is the subject of a Wikipedia entry, for example. In contrast, Gilad Shalit, who has spent five years in captivity, is a household name in many western countries, holds honorary citizenship in three countries, and has Wikipedia pages translated into twenty-three languages. The disparity in perception, organization and financing between Zionist propaganda and Palestinian organizing is obvious, shocking and humbling. This is the legacy of entrenched racism, complicit media practices, sustained dehumanization campaigns, asymmetrical colonial and global power dynamics, disorganized or incompetent political projects and priorities. Whatever the cause, the disparity must be eradicated, and fast.

Let this prisoner deal light a path to areas of neglected work that need to be focused on in the coming period among Palestinians and their allies in order to ensure that never again will the racism and discrepancy of human value between the colonized and the colonizer be able to prevail for so long.

[Click here for a comprehensive list of Palestinian prisoners being released by the Israeli govnernment on 18 October 2011, including their names, origins, dates of arrest, sentences received, and destination of release.]

Greater Israel - or Peace?

2011-10-20T08:06:00.001+02:00

Pathbreaking scholars Norman Finkelstein and John Mearsheimer speak out about the precarious future of the Jewish state.

The American Conservative | Scott McConnell | October 2011 | NEDERLANDS

Shortly before Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas arrived in New York to seek United Nations recognition of a Palestinian state, TAC’s Scott McConnell sat down with Norman Finkelstein and John Mearsheimer to discuss the deeper currents shaping the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since then, President Obama has given a speech shocking in its deference to Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s right-wing coalition, and there is no immediate prospect for renewed Israeli-Palestinian negotiations—the “peace process” begun with discussions in Oslo, Norway in 1991. Israel has announced fresh plans to move settlers into Palestinian areas of Jerusalem it conquered in 1967.

As daunting as the prospects for peace may be, Israel no longer enjoys immunity from criticism within the American media and academy—thanks in large part to the work of scholars like Mearsheimer and Finkelstein, who have forced a debate among foreign-policy thinkers and the American left over the price Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians all pay for Tel Aviv’s policies.

One of America’s most important dissident scholars, Norman Finkelstein has written six books touching on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In 2007, after he had been recommended by DePaul University’s political science department and described by the university as an “outstanding teacher,” he was denied tenure thanks to an unprecedented lobbying campaign waged by Alan Dershowitz, who had long sparred with Finkelstein over Israel. Finkelstein is the child of European Jews who survived Auschwitz and Majdanek, which gave added force to his book The Holocaust Industry, critical of ways Israel has exploited the Holocaust for financial and political gain. His most recent work, This Time We Went Too Far, is an analysis of Israel’s 2008-09 war against the Palestinians in Gaza.

Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago is one of America’s foremost international relations scholars. He created a storm in 2006 when he and co-author Stephen Walt of Harvard University published the essay “The Israel Lobby,” which was later expanded into a best-selling book.

Scott McConnell: Have we come to the end of the Oslo process? Is a two?state solution still a viable possibility?

Norman Finkelstein: The problem is the definition of terms. The Oslo process, contrary to what’s widely understood, was largely a success. It’s true now that it may be at an impasse, but as it was originally conceived, it was largely a success. The Israeli leadership was very clear about what it intended from the Oslo process.

Mainly, Rabin said—the former prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin—that if we can get the Palestinians to do the dirty work in the Occupied Territories, there’s going to be less pressure from human rights organizations. They wouldn’t cause as many problems if the Palestinians were doing the policing. And there was a military reason: namely, a large number of Israeli troops was bogged down in the Occupied Territories. That meant time taken away from military training.

The quid pro quo was, well, in 1990?91 the PLO made what seemed to have been a tactical or strategic error by supporting Saddam Hussein, and they lost all of their funding from the Gulf States. And basically the United States and Israel threw them a life preserver, saying, “If you switch sides, you do what we want you to do, we’ll keep you alive.” That was the choice that the Palestinians made, or the Palestinian leadership made. But then a new problem arose, and that’s Hamas began to rise in power.

John Mearsheimer: The Israelis—and this was especially true of Rabin when the Oslo peace process got started—had no interest in giving the Palestinians a viable state. What they wanted was to restrict the Palestinians to a handful of Bantustans that were located inside of Greater Israel, and it could be called a Palestinian state. In a very important way, Oslo has been successful in that it has allowed the Israelis, working with the Palestinian Authority, to create a situation where the Palestinians have some autonomy in these Bantustans.

McConnell: You say this about Rabin too? He’s considered the most peace-oriented Israeli.

Finkelstein: He was the most rigid. Even Rabin’s wife, afterwards, during the Camp David negotiations, said that her husband would never have agreed to the concessions that [Prime Minister Ehud] Barak made. Now remember, Barak barely made any concessions. But she said her husband would have never agreed to that. I think she’s probably right. In Rabin’s last speech to the Knesset before he was assassinated, he said, “I don’t support a Palestinian state.” He said, “Something less than it.”

Mearsheimer: It’s also important to understand the American position since the Oslo process began has reflected very clearly the Israeli position. It was considered politically unacceptable in the United States to use the words “Palestinian state” until Bill Clinton’s last month in office.

The first time Bill Clinton uttered the words “Palestinian state” was in January of 2001. If you remember, in 1998 Hillary Clinton, who was then the first lady, said that she thought it would be very good for peace in the region if Palestinians had a state of their own. All hell broke loose. The president had to dissociate himself from his wife because it was so controversial. This was 1998, five years after the Oslo peace accords had been signed.

As unusual as this may sound, or as paradoxical as this may sound, it was actually George W. Bush who was the first president who really put the issue of a Palestinian state on the table. But even he realized that with Ariel Sharon as his counterpart in Israel there was no way he could push in any meaningful manner for the Palestinians to get a viable state of their own. And again, that’s the key to having a deal.

McConnell: Do you think there is a framework for a possible deal in the kind of negotiations that went on late in Barak’s term before Sharon’s election, at the 2001 Taba summit and things like that?

Finkelstein: What you can say with a fair amount of generality is that if you look at the Taba map, and you look at the map that [Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert presented in 2006, they look the same. They all call for keeping about 9 percent of the West Bank, and they all call for keeping the large settlement blocs, what’s called Ariel in the north and Maale Adumim in the center. It is impossible to construct a Palestinian state with those maps.

Mearsheimer: Ariel reaches far out into the West Bank and actually sits on top of the largest aquifer in the West Bank, and it was put there for a purpose. Maale Adumim is designed to give Israel control well out into the heart of the West Bank. And the people who built those settlements understood full well that it would be almost impossible for any Israeli political leader to abandon them and turn them over to the Palestinians.

The reason that the Oslo peace process is dead and that you’re not going to get a two?state solution is that the political center of gravity in Israel has moved far enough to the right over time that it’s, in my opinion, unthinkable that the Israelis would number one, give up the Jordan River valley; number two, abandon Ariel and Maale Adumim; and number three, allow for a capital in East Jerusalem.

So given all those factors, I think that we’re rapidly reaching the point—in fact, I think we’ve reached that point—where we’re going to have a Greater Israel which runs from the Jordan River valley to the Mediterranean.

Finkelstein: I don’t agree with that. There are many reasons to be pessimistic. But there are also some grounds for a reasonable amount of optimism. Things are changing in the region, and things are changing in the world. Like you say, the Israeli political establishment has moved to the right. The Israeli population has moved to the right, it has a siege mentality. But those are political factors.

And then the question is trying to change the calculus of power. Here things are changing. There are changes in American public opinion, which are quite significant when you look at the polls. There are changes in Jewish public opinion. There are major regional changes—what’s happening now between Israel and Turkey that’s part of an Arab Spring.

Mearsheimer: I think there’s no question that the international environment that Israel operates in is changing in profound ways, and developments in Turkey and Egypt are probably the best two examples of that. As a result of all this, Israel has a growing sense that it’s isolated, that it really only has one friend in the world, which is the United States.

Now the $64,000 question is whether that’s likely to lead Israel to be more flexible in the short to medium term, or is it likely to cause them to hunker down and be much less flexible and even more bellicose than they have been. And I would bet that the latter would be the case.

McConnell: What difference does it make that Turkey and Egypt are no longer de facto allies of Israel?

Finkelstein: I think a lot of it is psychological, and not psychological in the sense of Oprah psychological. It’s a whole way of relating to the region. Israel has the sense that this is its region. And it’s very disorienting for them to feel as if they’re losing control in that part of the world, that the natives are getting restless.

Mearsheimer: I put Norman’s point in slightly different terms, that is to say, I think what is at stake for the Israelis here is legitimacy, and I think that for them, and for most countries, legitimacy matters greatly. If you read the Israeli press, you’ll see there are all sorts of concerns about de-legitimization. And if you listen to people in the American Jewish community talk about what’s happening to Israel, they’re deeply concerned about de?legitimization. What’s happening here with Turkey and with Egypt is that as those countries become more democratized and more critical of Israel, they’re adding fuel to that de?legitimization fire.

There’s no question that most European governments will support Israel at the UN, and there’s certainly no question that the United States will. But the support in Europe, and even the support in the United States, is not terribly deep. It’s wide, right, but not deep.

Finkelstein: Actually support for Israel is no longer that wide. It used to be fair to say wide but not deep, wide and thin. But now if you look at the polls, it’s actually quite surprising. In Pew polls of the last few years, the negative opinion of Israel is kind of astonishing.

Mearsheimer: It’s right down there with Iran, North Korea…

Finkelstein: Well, it’s always ranked with Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan. They’re the four countries least liked in the world. But even if you take countries which have the strongest Israel lobbies—apart from the U.S., it’s Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, and Australia—look at the polls. Even in places like Canada, the polls show about 15 to 20 percent having a positive view of Israel, 60 or 70 percent having a negative view. Public opinion has really swung. Even in the U.S., by the way.

McConnell: Let’s try to tease this out, I mean, the number of Americans who consider themselves pro?Israeli as opposed to pro-Palestinian has been kind of constant, like a 60 to 10 ratio, and hasn’t changed very much over a generation.

Finkelstein: Except—if you put it “pro?Israel versus pro?Palestinian,” that’s correct—if you look at it in terms of, “Do you have a positive or negative opinion of Israel?” for the first time in the last two or three years it’s come down to 50/50. It has changed.

Mearsheimer: I think that’s very important, but I think there’s an even more important indicator of how weak the support is. And that is that if you ask Americans if the United States should support Israel or the Palestinians in their conflict, roughly 70 percent, sometimes up to 75 percent, say we should favor neither side.

It’s really quite remarkable. We have this special relationship where we favor Israel axiomatically over Palestinians at every critical juncture. But here you have a situation where the American people, three-fourths of them, are saying that the United States should favor neither side. In fact, what the American people want to see is the United States act as a—what’s the word?

McConnell: Neutral arbiter.

Mearsheimer: Yeah, a neutral arbiter rather than as Israel’s lawyer.

When you think about how Americans deal with Israel, there are three dimensions to it. One is how people think about Israel and America’s relationship with Israel. Number two is how they talk about it, and number three is actual U.S. policy. There’s great variation among those three dimensions.

I think that over the past ten years how Americans think about Israel has changed in significant ways. More and more people are aware of what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians. They understand that this is bad for the United States from a strategic point of view, and it’s morally bankrupt behavior.

There has been a significant change in the discourse as well over the past ten years. And that’s largely a result of the Internet. It’s very difficult for pro?Israel forces to shape the discourse on the Internet the way they exercise great influence with the New York Times or CBS or even NPR.

So the discourse has really changed, especially when you get away from the mainstream media, which is increasingly less important. But what’s depressing is that U.S. policy has hardly changed at all. And the question you have to ask yourself is what does this mean for the long term. In a world where people are thinking very differently from the policy-makers and talking very differently from the policy-makers, how does this play itself out?

McConnell: Norman, you’ve been on this subject a long time, a whole career. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about the beginning of your involvement and whether you’ve sensed a change in response to what you say compared to the way it was 20 or 30 years ago, or 10 or 15 years ago?

Finkelstein: I’m sort of second generation. I think the Edward Said, Noam Chomsky generation was first—that was the generation of the ’70s, where it was really virtually impossible to say anything on the topic without being ostracized. I came in right after the Lebanon War of June 1982. And the Lebanon War was Israel’s first public relations disaster in the United States, at least after the ’67 War. They took a big blow back then. It’s forgotten, but it was a PR disaster. Immediately afterwards they tried to recoup from it.

Actually, one of the initiatives they took to recoup was how I got started. I think the Joan Peters book From Time Immemorial was simply a propaganda exercise to try to recoup from the ’82 war.

The next big change occurs with the 1987 Palestinian Intifada, which I think had a very substantial impact, though it was temporary, on public opinion in the United States. I was already teaching by ’88. And I remember in my class—I was at Brooklyn College at the time—a student who was not particularly political, he was what you’d call a typical white ethnic, he was either Irish or Italian, from Bay Ridge or Bensonhurst, he said in class, “Stone vs. Uzi, that doesn’t sound fair.” And that was the image that was being projected then.

The next big turning point probably came with the Second Intifada, which had a very negative impact because of the suicide bombings. But it also had a positive impact because the Israeli repression was so terrible; again, it alienated significant numbers of people.

As for myself, I don’t know if you were familiar with the lingo from back in the ’30s and ’40s, but there were all of these young Americans, many of whom incidentally were Jewish, in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, who went to go fight fascism in Spain. And at that point, to fight fascism made you pro?Communist, because—you know the whole thing. And then they went to fight in World War II again.

So they come back, and a lot of them are called before [Sen. Joseph] McCarthy, the very same people who fought in World War II. And why were they called before McCarthy? Well, they called themselves premature anti?fascists. They were anti?fascists before it was politically correct to be anti?fascists because they were anti?fascist at the time of Franco, and at that time the Americans supported Franco.

So even though personally my political positions aren’t really radical at all, and even though I don’t particularly like the nomenclature, I say I was a premature anti?Zionist.

Mearsheimer: Can I ask Norman a quick question…

McConnell: Yeah, sure.

Mearsheimer: …which I think is important to readers and for me and Scott. You say that you’re an anti?Zionist.

Finkelstein: No, I don’t. I say I don’t like the nomenclature.

Mearsheimer: You said you were an anti?Zionist before your time.

Finkelstein: I said that just to make the parallel with anti?fascist.

Mearsheimer: But here’s the question. Do you, Norman Finkelstein, think it’s a good thing there’s a Jewish state?

Finkelstein: No. But I don’t think it’s a good thing to have Christian states, Muslim states, or any kind of ethnic states. There is a difference between saying… remember let’s be clear about what the UN said. The UN said, “We want to create a Jewish state and an Arab state in Palestine.”

Mearsheimer: Right.

Finkelstein: But then the UN went on to say, and it was very explicit in the recommendation, “There cannot be any discrimination whatsoever in the Jewish state against an Arab minority.” Now, you may ask the reasonable question, “Well, if there can’t be any discrimination whatsoever, what do they mean by a Jewish state?” They never answer that.

But it doesn’t necessarily follow from the idea that you say there should be two states that you believe it should be a Jewish state or that you’re a Zionist. There’s no connection between the two.

Mearsheimer: I was just interested in what your preferences were.

Finkelstein: I think one of the problems when we discuss the Israel?Palestine conflict is people talk too much in terms of “What’s your preference?”, like politics is a Chinese menu—I’ll take one from column A and two from column B. That’s not what politics is about.

Politics is about what is realistically possible in terms of your long?term values, your philosophical perspective. What is really possible now in my opinion are two states, basically what people call the international consensus. It doesn’t mean it’s my philosophical preference. If you asked me, I’d say I would like to see a world without states.

McConnell: When does a two-state solution become not realistically possible?

Mearsheimer: The reason that people continue to talk about a two?state solution even though I think it’s no longer realizable is that many Palestinians don’t see a viable alternative; they don’t think that a one?state solution will work.

And in the case of many Israelis and their American supporters, they’re basically sticking their heads in the sand because they don’t want to talk about a one?state solution, because they understand that a one?state solution is basically an apartheid state.

Finkelstein: You know, I can see John’s point, but we have to be clear about what John’s point is. He was talking about political facts and political will. He said that the political spectrum has shifted in Israel and that it’s going to be very hard to get these people to budge.

Yes, that’s true. It’s going to be hard to get them to budge, but the problem is, to put it simply, it’s never been tried. The only time it really was tried to get them to budge was the First Intifada, and you know, the First Intifada was very sobering for Israel.

I lived there during the First Intifada. I used to go every summer. You’d be very surprised what it looked like. They had to have 500,000 troops there. When you went in the Occupied Territories then, you saw 65?year?old men—they had to bring up all their reserves, and they were putting in six months.

Once there is a real mass action and summoning of will, you may see things shift in Israel. It’s just not been tried. All that’s been tried is this thing called a “peace process.” Nothing happens because there was no pressure on them; the Israelis treat the whole thing like a joke.

Mearsheimer: A lot has changed since 1987 when the First Intifada broke out. First of all, there are many more settlers. And if you leave 60-plus percent of those settlers, you still have to remove…

Finkelstein: 200,000.

Mearsheimer: Right. You still have to remove a…

Finkelstein: If you look at the polls, the polls vary. But as high as 60 percent say they’re willing to be bought out. The Israeli expression is “quality of life settlers.” They just moved there because Israel gave them tons of mortgage subsidies and everything. They say, “Give us money, we’ll leave.”

Mearsheimer: But the fact is that if 40 percent of the settlers were to resist removal, it would be incredibly bloody.

Finkelstein: Yeah, but then you look at the polls, and the polls say about 10,000 or 15,000 would resist violently. The rest say they would oppose it, but if the army gives an order, “You have to leave,” only about 10,000 or 15,000 say that they would resist violently. In my opinion that’s mostly bravado. The actual number will probably be several thousand.

And then the Israeli former security people say there’s a really easy way to handle them: all we’ll do is say, “We’re leaving. You want to stay in Hebron with 160,000 crazy Arabs? Stay. We’re going.” And the Israeli security people say, “You’ll see how fast they’ll leave.”

Mearsheimer: Your point that pressure has not been brought to bear on the Israelis up to now is correct. But the reason that pressure has not been brought to bear is because the United States protects Israel at every turn. If the United States were willing to put serious sanctions on Israel, there’s no question that we could get Israel to move to a two?state settlement very quickly.

And by the way, that would be good for Israel, good for the Palestinians, and good for us. And the fact that we don’t do it is really quite shocking because it’s a win?win?win situation.

Finkelstein: Correct.

Mearsheimer: But then the question is, who’s going to put pressure on Israel?

Finkelstein: That’s why I said there are new factors. It is true that the U.S. is the key factor, but now with the Arab Spring there are regional factors. For a lot of the Arab countries, or a lot of the Arab leaders, this has become a drain on them. Turkey and Egypt, they want to modernize and this Israel/Palestine thing is a drain on them. They have a real incentive to want to resolve it.

But the other thing is, as we’ve all agreed, there are changes in public opinion. The challenge is translating the changes in public opinion into some sort of political force. There is raw material; it still requires work. It’s a hard job, but our possibilities now are greater than ever.

Mearsheimer: Yeah. I hope that you’re right, but I think that you’re wrong. The reason has to do with how American politics works. The way this political system of ours was set up in the beginning gave huge amounts of influence to interest groups, interest groups of all sorts.

In the present situation, interest groups that have lots of money can influence the political process in profound ways. The principal reason that we don’t have any financial reform after the 2008 financial crisis is, in large part, because of the interest groups or lobbies associated with the financial industry. They’re just so powerful in Washington that Congress really can’t stand up to them. As a result, we’ve done very little to fix the system that caused this disaster in 2008.

When it comes to foreign policy, we, of course, have interest groups—like the Cuban lobby, the Israel lobby, the Armenian lobby—that can wield lots of influence. In this day and age, where money really matters, and where the Israel lobby has lots of money to throw at political candidates, it is very easy for it to get its way. And foolishly, in my opinion, the lobby tends to support the hard-line policies of Israel, which I don’t think are in Israel’s interests.

The end result is that virtually nobody on Capitol Hill will stand up to Benjamin Netanyahu. And the president won’t either.

Finkelstein: Everything you said, of course, is true and I don’t bury my head in the ground. The only addition to what you said is, I haven’t seen any real attempt to challenge the lobby. There’s never been a serious opposition in Washington. They’ve never had to contend with anybody.

It is true money talks. No question about it. But then we don’t know how many people in Congress—I know you may react cynically to it—but we don’t really know how many are just misinformed. They just don’t know what’s going on because there’s nobody on the other side doing anything. How many people in Congress are really sick of the bribery and bullying of AIPAC, but there’s nobody with whom they can stand? There’s no lobby here.

It’s work that we have to do. And then, once we have done our part and nothing budges, I’ll see your side. But it’s the same thing with the Palestinians. I saw what happened during the First Intifada. The Israelis were in a complete panic. They didn’t know what to do. They didn’t know if they were coming or going. The people had real power.

McConnell: My fear is that Israel, if they were faced with a third Intifada as a result of, say, the dead?end of the Palestinian?UN thing, would welcome it.

Mearsheimer: It’s very clear that when the Palestinians turn to terrorism it works to Israel’s advantage. It makes much more sense for the Palestinians to pursue a Gandhi?like policy. The other reason that the Palestinians do not want to turn to terrorism or to a third Intifada is the threat of further expulsion. I believe that there are lots of Israelis who would welcome an opportunity to drive the Palestinians…

McConnell: Across the Jordan River. Yeah.

Mearsheimer: …out of Greater Israel and solve the demographic problem that way. The reason I believe that Israel is in such trouble over the long term is that you’re going to end up with a Greater Israel, where there are going to be more Palestinians than Israeli Jews.

In fact, I think I could make a convincing argument that right now there are more Palestinians than Israeli Jews living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. But certainly 20 years down the road, the numbers are going to clearly favor the Palestinians, and I believe that will be an apartheid state. It will be impossible for Israel to maintain that state.

McConnell: What keeps Israel from trying to push the Palestinians out of the West Bank?

Finkelstein: I remember during the Second Intifada, I had a several hour conversation with Rantissi, who was the head of Hamas—he was subsequently assassinated by Israel. And I said to him, “You know, these suicide bombings, they just give Israel the pretext to commit massacres.” And he said to me, “Israel does what it wants. It doesn’t need pretext.” I said to him, “If Israel did what it wanted to do, none of you would be here.”

Israel has real constraints and limits imposed on it by international public opinion. People are very naïve about that. Even the Gaza massacre, the Israeli invasion of 2008 to 2009, okay, it was terrible. No question about it. Killed 1,400 people. Lebanon 2006, July, August, it killed 1,200 people, 1,000 civilians. It was horrible. But it was really small potatoes next to Lebanon 1982. Lebanon ’82, the estimates are they killed between 15,000 and 20,000 people. That’s a big difference because the limits have increased on them.

Mearsheimer: And what has increased the limits?

Finkelstein: Well, public opinion has put real constraints on what Israel can do, even though what it did in Gaza was terrible, I’ll be the first one to say. It’s still much less than they were once able to get away with. Every time there’s a war, they have been hoping to do a mass expulsion: during that attack on Iraq in 2003; they were hoping to do it in 1990?–91. If you read the Israeli newspapers, they’re always talking about the transfer. They can’t do it because public opinion puts real constraints on them.

I think sometimes we underestimate just how vulnerable Israel is on the public-relations front. That’s why they spend so much money on propaganda. And that’s why they panic every time they feel like they’re losing the propaganda war. Because they realize just how vulnerable they are and how big the constraints on them are. Otherwise it makes no sense why they invest so much in that image of theirs.

Mearsheimer: When Norman says that Israelis and their supporters in the United States care greatly about what people think about Israel, I think that’s a further way of saying they’re worried deeply about Israel’s legitimacy. And this is why people like Norman and people like me, and Steve Walt, and Jimmy Carter, and Noam Chomsky, and Edward Said are viewed as being so dangerous to Israel. When Norman tells you about all the times he’s been blacklisted and mafia?like tactics have been used on him, basically what’s going on there is that the lobby is interested in marginalizing him and silencing him because it knows how dangerous he is.

Israel’s greatest advantage in the world today is in terms of its material resources. It’s a rich country that has one of the most formidable militaries on the planet. And of course, it’s joined at the hip with the United States, which has the most formidable military in the world.

But where Israel is particularly weak and is threatened is in the realm of ideas. I like to think about this in Gramscian terms. Gramsci used to talk about wars of ideas. What’s happened here is that as the material balance of power has moved in Israel’s favor, the balance of ideas has moved against Israel.

People like Norman, who are what I like to call the “corridor cutters” on this issue, help in a major way, pushing in that direction. Then people like Jimmy Carter, Steve Walt, and I came along and stood on the shoulders of people like Norman. All of us have been attacked, viciously attacked in some cases, and ostracized in other cases because we are viewed as a threat.

Again, it all gets back to that important concept of legitimacy.

McConnell: There’s some voice in me, not mine, but I can hear a voice saying if you’re a realist in terms of power politics, ideas matter much less than military/economic strength and things like that.

Mearsheimer: The truth is sometimes ideas don’t matter very much, and sometimes they really do. This is a case where ideas do matter. What the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians has become an important part of our discourse about the Middle East. It simply does not work to Israel’s advantage. My argument is that this situation is only going to get worse over time. Israel is going to be more isolated, and the United States, which of course backs Israel at every turn, is going to be increasingly isolated as well.

Finkelstein: On the strictly military plane, it is true Israel is very powerful. But we should also bear in mind that it’s become a very modern country. One of the consequences of becoming a modern country is people don’t want to die. Israel has a very effective, automated military. But when it comes to actual battlefield engagement, the Israeli soldiers don’t want to fight.

McConnell: What happened in Lebanon in 2006?

Finkelstein: It’s very clear Israel did not launch a major ground offensive for one reason: it did not want to take a large number of casualties. Lebanon proved to be for them a complete disaster. Now they make claims—there’s a tiny bit of truth to it—their claim was that because they were bogged down during the Second Intifada in policing action in the West Bank, there had been no time for rehearsals for ground/air coordination and that’s why things went so badly in Lebanon.

There’s a little bit of truth to it, but a bigger truth is Hezbollah people, they’re ready to die. They’re not afraid to go out there and get killed. The Israelis don’t want to get killed. The same thing happened in Gaza. Gaza was a—there was no war. As one person put it, it was like a child with a magnifying glass burning ants. It was all a high?tech war.

Once a friend of mine—she’s an Israeli, I went to high school with her—she was very offended, and she said why did I call Israel a modern?day Sparta? She says, “You don’t know Israelis. They’re not Sparta. They like the Beatles. They like this, they like that.” I said, “You misunderstood what I said. I said a high?tech Sparta.” Because it’s true, they are not Spartans. They like cafes. They like the good life.

Mearsheimer: They like unfair fights.

Finkelstein: They want to live.

Mearsheimer: But I think there’s a more important point at play here, which is not to say this point is not important. As Israel becomes a modern economy, and you have more and more people who are secular, wealthy, and like to lead the good life, what begins to happen is that they begin to think about the exit option. They think about leaving Israel. Because they don’t want to live in Sparta. They’d much prefer to live in Europe or in the United States.

McConnell: Are you guys surprised by how quickly Obama seemed to have climbed down from making a solution to the conflict a top priority? By all indications he was someone who understood the moral and political case for a Palestinian state.

Mearsheimer: He did not step away from the problem quickly. Shortly after taking office in January 2009 he began to put pressure on Israel—throughout 2009, throughout 2010, and even earlier this year Obama was putting pressure on the Israelis.

That of course is why Netanyahu came to Washington and spoke before AIPAC and spoke before Congress and went toe to toe, in effect, with Obama. The sad truth is that Netanyahu beat him at every turn, and now with the election looming and the economy in shambles, Obama is in no position to pick a fight with Israel.

Finkelstein: Even if Obama prevailed over Netanyahu, the settlement he was calling for was roughly that map where Israel would keep about 10 percent—9 or 10 percent—of the West Bank, including all the major settlement blocs.

If you include the settlement blocs, like Maale Adumim, there’s no state because the way that settlement bloc is constructed, it separates Jerusalem from the whole West Bank. So you have this little island of Jerusalem. Metropolitan Jerusalem is about 30 to 40 percent of the Palestinian economy. If you separate Jerusalem, there’s no state. Even if Obama prevailed and you got the 10 percent map, it still has no relationship to what a viable Palestinian state would look like.

Mearsheimer: I don’t think, Norman, that it’s clear whether Obama was thinking in terms of what’s called the Israeli map or whether he was thinking in terms of the Palestinian map. But I believe that most of his Middle East advisers and Obama understand that the only way we’re going to solve this is to give the Palestinians a viable state, and that means basically the Palestinian map.

Finkelstein: No, I don’t think that’s true, John. I mean…

Mearsheimer: Then I wonder why you’re so optimistic that we can solve this one?

Finkelstein: Oh, because as I said, I totally agree with you on Congress. I totally agree with you on the executive. On those points there’s no disagreement at all. What I said is there is a changed political configuration now. There are changes in public opinion. There are changes in Jewish opinion. There’s a lot of work to be done. But there are reasons to be optimistic.

McConnell: Can you elaborate on the changes in Jewish opinion?

Finkelstein: Trying to understand Jewish relationships with Israel, there are three factors. There is the ethnic factor, which is the one people tend to home in on—Israel, Jewish State, of course Jews love Israel. That’s how people usually reason.

There is a second factor. That’s the citizenship factor, namely American Jews are American citizens, and they have a good life here, and they are very wary of being hit with the dual-loyalty charge. So wherever it looks like there are tensions between the U.S. and Israel, or tensions might be brewing, Americans Jews are very cautious and very wary.

That was very noticeable between ’48 and ’67, when American Jews had no interest whatsoever in Israel. It’s easily documented. Even those people who subsequently became Israel’s supporters, like Norman Podhoretz—if you look at Commentary magazine, as I have, between 1960 and 1967, there’s virtually nothing on Israel.

And then there’s the third factor. It’s the ideological factor. American Jews are liberal. They are liberal Democrats ever since Roosevelt in ’32. Last presidential election, 80 percent of Jews voted for Obama. More Jews voted for Obama than Latinos voted for Obama. American Jews are liberal, and they vote liberal and Democratic. Now for a long time on this ideological level, they were able to reconcile being liberal with being supportive of Israel, because Israel was the light unto the nations, bringing Western civilization to the barbaric East…

Mearsheimer: Only democracy.

Finkelstein: Only democracy in the Middle East, and all the rest. Well, in the last ten or 15 years, it’s wearing thin, and American Jews are having a lot of trouble as liberals—especially young American Jews on college campuses, which tend to be more liberal than American society in general—they’re having a lot of trouble reconciling their liberal beliefs with the way Israel carries on, and Israeli conduct and Israeli society in general.

And therefore you can see in a lot of polls—the best pollster in the American Jewish community, by a far margin, is Stephen Cohen. And Cohen says, “Support for Israel is dying.” He claims it’s dying because of intermarriage; you know, the ethnic factor. Jews are now intermarrying at a rate of about 6o percent. He says that it’s obvious that among the intermarried Jews, interest in Israel tends to plummet. And again, there’s a lot of statistical evidence. The intermarriage factor is significant. But I think as big a factor now is the liberalism factor. They just can’t do it anymore.

Mearsheimer: This is the Peter Beinart thesis.

Finkelstein: No, that’s the Norman Finkelstein thesis, which Peter Beinart took. [laughter]

Finkelstein: Because I was working on it since 2007. You know, I lectured very widely on it. I wrote a book. I started the book. It was called A Farewell to Israel: The Coming Break?up of American Jewish Support for Israel. I’ve since re-titled it. It’s now called Knowing Too Much because I think that’s the problem. American Jews now know too much. They don’t know what to do with it.

McConnell: And Birthright Israel isn’t enough to counter this?

Finkelstein: It’s not enough, no, because Birthright Israel, first of all, is self?selective. Many of them are just…

Mearsheimer: It’s propaganda. It’s very hard to propagandize Jews. They’re very knowledgeable, and they’re critical thinkers.

Finkelstein: That’s the other thing. All of the scholarship that comes out—those are the sectors where Jews tend to be, in the highly educated, literate sectors. That information is reaching them, and they don’t know what to do with it. You can see it in colleges now. It used to be when someone like me would come speak, it would be hysteria, with the audience shouting and screaming. Then they realized, “Well, we don’t really want to do that anymore.” So they would start having vigils outside and passing out leaflets.

Now, nothing. Nothing. There’s only one way they can work now: behind the scenes. They try to put pressure to not invite him because he’s this or he’s that. Behind the scenes they’re working very hard, but in the public arena—in the court of public opinion—they have vanished because it’s hopeless. How do you defend it?

They don’t like me, not because of my beliefs, they don’t like me because they know I’m going to have the facts. I read. I patiently go through all the reports. That’s what they fear. It’s not my politics because, as I said, my politics are not radical. It’s the facts. They’re in dread of that because there’s no defense anymore.

McConnell: How much are you speaking now on campuses?

Finkelstein: Quite a lot. Let’s put it this way: I could easily speak every day, if I were to accept every invitation, but it’s impossible because my forte is knowing the facts, which means I have to sit home and work. I have to read. I don’t want to become a rhetorical speaker. My effectiveness is mastering all of the data and being able to respond.

People ask me, “Why don’t you ever lose your cool? Why don’t you get angry? I get so angry.” I say, “Because the reason you get angry is frustration. You know what the other person is saying is not true, but you don’t know how to answer it. You don’t know the facts, and that’s where the anger and frustration come from.”

When you know how to answer it, you just sit very patiently. You’ll get your turn, and then you’ll answer. That’s why I can’t accept all the speaking engagements, because I’ve got to know the facts. Then we’ll be effective, and I still say we could win. John knows that, because I saw that you can have very big meetings at the University of Chicago, which has a very large Jewish population. There was one meeting where John and I were present, I don’t remember which one it was.

Mearsheimer: Yeah, it was during operation Cast Lead in January 2009.

Finkelstein: It must have been what? 1,500 people?

Mearsheimer: It was a huge audience. They turned away, I think, 800 people.

Finkelstein: And they can’t answer, the other side. There’s nothing. Nothing. And that’s what’s causing a lot of Jews—that’s, for me, what’s breaking up the whole support. It’s like—oh, what’s his name?—David Remnick said a few months ago. He said, “How long is this occupation going to go on?” He said, “I can’t take it anymore.” But what he really meant was, “I can’t justify it anymore.” How do you justify it?

The American Conservative needs the support of readers. Please subscribe or make a contribution today.

ANP: "Het omstreden Argentijnse regime van dictator Videla"

2011-10-13T13:59:00.001+02:00

Premier Mark Rutte wil nu geen discussie voeren over de vraag of de vader van prinses Máxima, Jorge Zorreguieta, aanwezig mag zijn bij de inhuldiging van Willem-Alexander tot koning. Rutte noemde de discussie nu "ontijdig". Het zogeheten "persbureau" ANP, dat feitelijk een gewoon commercieel bedrijf is waar men 'nieuws' kan kopen, is er als de kippen bij om Rutte een handje te helpen:

"Zorreguieta was minister van Landbouw in het omstreden Argentijnse regime van dictator Videla."

We moeten dus geloven dat het Videla regime in Argentinië "omstreden" is, wat zoveel betekent als dat het geen zekerheid is of je dat regime wel of niet als deugdelijk zou kunnen beschouwen.

BBC: The 1976 coup heralded an era of repression and human rights abuses.

Jorge Videla kwam aan de macht door middel van een militaire staatsgreep in 1976 (foto), waarna hij zichzelf tot president benoemde, en het land werd bestuurd door een militaire junta. Die periode van staatsterrorisme wordt aangeduid als de "Vuile Oorlog". Wikipedia:

In 1976 voorspelde één van de generaals, "We gaan 50.000 mensen doden: 25.000 opstandelingen, 20.000 sympathisanten, en we zullen 5.000 fouten maken." De Nationale Commissie op de Verdwijning van Personen (CONADEP) onderzocht en registreerde, zaak voor zaak, 9.000 verdwijningen met daarbij de aantekening dat het er veel meer zouden kunnen zijn. Algemeen geaccepteerde huidige schattingen van mensenrechtenorganisaties geeft als aantal 30.000 slachtoffers. De meeste slachtoffers waren geen bewapende guerrillastrijders, van wie de organisaties zo goed als vernietigd waren, maar allerlei mensen van wie vermoed werd dat ze politiek actief waren en linksgeoriënteerd. Ramón Camps vertelde de krant Clarín, in 1984, dat hij marteling gebruikte als ondervragingsmiddel en 5000 ‘verdwijningen’ had georkestreerd. Hij rechtvaardigde de ontvoering van kinderen geboren tijdens gevangenschap van hun moeders met het argument dat "subversieve ouders subversieve kinderen zullen grootbrengen".

Veel van "verdwenenen" werden uit vliegtuigen gegooid in de Río de la Plata of de Atlantische Oceaan om ze te laten verdrinken. Deze vorm van verdwijningen die de naam ‘Dodenvluchten’ kreeg was bedacht door Luis Maria, voormalig leider van zeeoperaties 1976-77. Tijdens zijn rechtszaak nam hij volledige verantwoordelijkheid voor operaties die door zijn ondergeschikten uitgevoerd werden.

Dus wat is er precies "omstreden" aan het Videla regime? Een regime dat in binnen- en buitenland veroordeeld is voor het uitschakelen van democratische grondrechten en het op grote schaal schenden van de mensenrechten?

U zult uzelf echter geen plezier doen om dit soort vragen aan het ANP voor te leggen. Dat zeg ik uit eigen ervaring. Na veel herhalen krijgt u op goed geluk een aangebrande journalist met een antwoord: "jarenlange ervaring", "betrouwbare bronnen" en wellicht iets in de trant van: "Ik begin geen polemiek en voor mij is hiermee de discussie gesloten." Gezegd moet worden dat dit niet een typische reactie is van het ANP, maar geldt voor alle journalisten van de commerciële massamedia ("kwaliteitspers") die feiten verzwijgen of verdraaien om "hogere belangen dan de waarheid" te dienen. "Hogere belangen dan de waarheid, die VPRO-journalist Chris Kijne in 2009 aanstipte:

"Voor ons journalisten was het natuurlijk niet nieuw dat Wouter Bos ons niet altijd de waarheid vertelde. Wel is het nieuw dat ik op dit moment even niet meer weet of ik wel even hard als vroeger mijn best moet doen om hem die waarheid te laten vertellen. Of er inderdaad niet even een hoger belang is dan 'de waarheid, niets dan de waarheid'." (via Stan van Houcke)

TRANSLATE

Roosevelt's Vier Vrijheden en Second Bill of Rights

2011-10-13T12:12:00.001+02:00

Op 6 januari 1941 presenteerde de Amerikaanse president Franklin Delano Roosevelt aan het Amerikaans Congres zijn zogeheten "Four freedoms"-plan: vrijheid van meningsuiting, vrijheid van godsdienst, vrijwaring van gebrek en vrijwaring van vrees. In zijn State of the Union toespraak op 11 januari 1944 (zie video) bepleitte hij een Tweede Grondwet, waarin deze vrijheden, en meer zogeheten economische vrijheden, zouden moeten worden opgenomen.

Roosevelts echtgenote Eleanor heeft ervoor gepleit dat de Vier Vrijheden werden opgenomen in de Universele Verklaring van de Rechten van de Mens van de Verenigde Naties. De vrijheden vormen de grondslag voor de mensenrechten in de hele wereld. In de VS is de Second Bill of Rights er nooit gekomen. Maar dezelfde rechten worden momenteel weer bepleit door de Occupy... beweging in de VS, die momenteel ook in andere landen voet aan de grond krijgt.

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.”[2] People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

NEDERLANDS

(complete tekst hier)

De mythe van het Amerikaanse exceptionalisme

2011-10-13T11:08:00.003+02:00

Nederland volgt in haar buitenlandbeleid altijd "de Amerikaanse lijn", zoals minister Uri Rosenthal het in december vorig jaar uitdrukte. Ook in het zogenoemde Midden-Oosten conflict mag Nederland geen eigen standpunt innemen, omdat we daarmee "de Amerikaanse inspanningen" zouden kunnen "verstoren". Onze taak is om deze te "versterken". Want dat is het "primaire punt".

"Het gaat er dus niet om dat er geen initiatieven kunnen en moeten worden genomen, maar dat die initiatieven de inspanningen van de Amerikanen zullen moeten versterken."

Maar waarom? Niet omdat de Amerikaanse inspanningen enig succes hebben geboekt. Integendeel. Omdat bijna al onze beleidsmakers in Den Haag de mythe van het Amerikaanse exceptionalisme kritiekloos omarmen, hoeft Rosenthal zijn 'lijn' niet eens te beargumenteren. Omdat simpelweg niemand in Den Haag ernaar zou vragen. Onze steun aan en bewondering voor de Verenigde Staten is echter niet gebaseerd op rationele argumenten, maar op een aanname die we dagelijks opgelepeld krijgen door met name de commerciële massamedia, die we vreemd genoeg "kwaliteitspers" noemen - maar dat is weer een andere mythe. Op school begint het al, waar we leren we al dat "de nieuwe wereld", de Noord-Amerikaanse heilstaat, is ontdekt door de "held" Christoffel Columbus, die we een "ontdekkingsreiziger" noemen, in plaats van een van de grootste massamoordenaars in de geschiedenis der mensheid.

TRANSLATE

During Columbus time in Haiti, he and his men hunted the Taino Indians for sport, beating, raping,
torturing, killing, and then using the Indian bodies as food for their hunting dogs.

» A people's history of the United States, Chapter 1 - Columbus, the indians and human progress
» The Myth of "America"
» Columbus Day: American Holocaust and Slave Trader

The Myth of American Exceptionalism
The idea that the United States is uniquely virtuous may be comforting to Americans. Too bad it's not true.

Foreign Policy | By Stephen M. Walt | November 2011 | NEDERLANDS

Over the last two centuries, prominent Americans have described the United States as an "empire of liberty," a "shining city on a hill," the "last best hope of Earth," the "leader of the free world," and the "indispensable nation." These enduring tropes explain why all presidential candidates feel compelled to offer ritualistic paeans to America's greatness and why President Barack Obama landed in hot water -- most recently, from Mitt Romney -- for saying that while he believed in "American exceptionalism," it was no different from "British exceptionalism," "Greek exceptionalism," or any other country's brand of patriotic chest-thumping.

Most statements of "American exceptionalism" presume that America's values, political system, and history are unique and worthy of universal admiration. They also imply that the United States is both destined and entitled to play a distinct and positive role on the world stage.

The only thing wrong with this self-congratulatory portrait of America's global role is that it is mostly a myth. Although the United States possesses certain unique qualities -- from high levels of religiosity to a political culture that privileges individual freedom -- the conduct of U.S. foreign policy has been determined primarily by its relative power and by the inherently competitive nature of international politics. By focusing on their supposedly exceptional qualities, Americans blind themselves to the ways that they are a lot like everyone else.

This unchallenged faith in American exceptionalism makes it harder for Americans to understand why others are less enthusiastic about U.S. dominance, often alarmed by U.S. policies, and frequently irritated by what they see as U.S. hypocrisy, whether the subject is possession of nuclear weapons, conformity with international law, or America's tendency to condemn the conduct of others while ignoring its own failings. Ironically, U.S. foreign policy would probably be more effective if Americans were less convinced of their own unique virtues and less eager to proclaim them.

What we need, in short, is a more realistic and critical assessment of America's true character and contributions. In that spirit, I offer here the Top 5 Myths about American Exceptionalism.

Myth 1: There Is Something Exceptional About American Exceptionalism.

Whenever American leaders refer to the "unique" responsibilities of the United States, they are saying that it is different from other powers and that these differences require them to take on special burdens.

Yet there is nothing unusual about such lofty declarations; indeed, those who make them are treading a well-worn path. Most great powers have considered themselves superior to their rivals and have believed that they were advancing some greater good when they imposed their preferences on others. The British thought they were bearing the "white man's burden," while French colonialists invoked la mission civilisatrice to justify their empire. Portugal, whose imperial activities were hardly distinguished, believed it was promoting a certain missão civilizadora. Even many of the officials of the former Soviet Union genuinely believed they were leading the world toward a socialist utopia despite the many cruelties that communist rule inflicted. Of course, the United States has by far the better claim to virtue than Stalin or his successors, but Obama was right to remind us that all countries prize their own particular qualities.

So when Americans proclaim they are exceptional and indispensable, they are simply the latest nation to sing a familiar old song. Among great powers, thinking you're special is the norm, not the exception.

Myth 2: The United States Behaves Better Than Other Nations Do.

Declarations of American exceptionalism rest on the belief that the United States is a uniquely virtuous nation, one that loves peace, nurtures liberty, respects human rights, and embraces the rule of law. Americans like to think their country behaves much better than other states do, and certainly better than other great powers.

If only it were true. The United States may not have been as brutal as the worst states in world history, but a dispassionate look at the historical record belies most claims about America's moral superiority.

For starters, the United States has been one of the most expansionist powers in modern history. It began as 13 small colonies clinging to the Eastern Seaboard, but eventually expanded across North America, seizing Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California from Mexico in 1846. Along the way, it eliminated most of the native population and confined the survivors to impoverished reservations. By the mid-19th century, it had pushed Britain out of the Pacific Northwest and consolidated its hegemony over the Western Hemisphere.

The United States has fought numerous wars since then -- starting several of them -- and its wartime conduct has hardly been a model of restraint. The 1899-1902 conquest of the Philippines killed some 200,000 to 400,000 Filipinos, most of them civilians, and the United States and its allies did not hesitate to dispatch some 305,000 German and 330,000 Japanese civilians through aerial bombing during World War II, mostly through deliberate campaigns against enemy cities. No wonder Gen. Curtis LeMay, who directed the bombing campaign against Japan, told an aide, "If the U.S. lost the war, we would be prosecuted as war criminals." The United States dropped more than 6 million tons of bombs during the Indochina war, including tons of napalm and lethal defoliants like Agent Orange, and it is directly responsible for the deaths of many of the roughly 1 million civilians who died in that war.

More recently, the U.S.-backed Contra war in Nicaragua killed some 30,000 Nicaraguans, a percentage of their population equivalent to 2 million dead Americans. U.S. military action has led directly or indirectly to the deaths of 250,000 Muslims over the past three decades (and that's a low-end estimate, not counting the deaths resulting from the sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s), including the more than 100,000 people who died following the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. U.S. drones and Special Forces are going after suspected terrorists in at least five countries at present and have killed an unknown number of innocent civilians in the process. Some of these actions may have been necessary to make Americans more prosperous and secure. But while Americans would undoubtedly regard such acts as indefensible if some foreign country were doing them to us, hardly any U.S. politicians have questioned these policies. Instead, Americans still wonder, "Why do they hate us?"

The United States talks a good game on human rights and international law, but it has refused to sign most human rights treaties, is not a party to the International Criminal Court, and has been all too willing to cozy up to dictators -- remember our friend Hosni Mubarak? -- with abysmal human rights records. If that were not enough, the abuses at Abu Ghraib and the George W. Bush administration's reliance on waterboarding, extraordinary rendition, and preventive detention should shake America's belief that it consistently acts in a morally superior fashion. Obama's decision to retain many of these policies suggests they were not a temporary aberration.

The United States never conquered a vast overseas empire or caused millions to die through tyrannical blunders like China's Great Leap Forward or Stalin's forced collectivization. And given the vast power at its disposal for much of the past century, Washington could certainly have done much worse. But the record is clear: U.S. leaders have done what they thought they had to do when confronted by external dangers, and they paid scant attention to moral principles along the way. The idea that the United States is uniquely virtuous may be comforting to Americans; too bad it's not true.

Myth 3: America's Success Is Due to Its Special Genius.

The United States has enjoyed remarkable success, and Americans tend to portray their rise to world power as a direct result of the political foresight of the Founding Fathers, the virtues of the U.S. Constitution, the priority placed on individual liberty, and the creativity and hard work of the American people. In this narrative, the United States enjoys an exceptional global position today because it is, well, exceptional.

There is more than a grain of truth to this version of American history. It's not an accident that immigrants came to America in droves in search of economic opportunity, and the "melting pot" myth facilitated the assimilation of each wave of new Americans. America's scientific and technological achievements are fully deserving of praise and owe something to the openness and vitality of the American political order.

But America's past success is due as much to good luck as to any uniquely American virtues. The new nation was lucky that the continent was lavishly endowed with natural resources and traversed by navigable rivers. It was lucky to have been founded far from the other great powers and even luckier that the native population was less advanced and highly susceptible to European diseases. Americans were fortunate that the European great powers were at war for much of the republic's early history, which greatly facilitated its expansion across the continent, and its global primacy was ensured after the other great powers fought two devastating world wars. This account of America's rise does not deny that the United States did many things right, but it also acknowledges that America's present position owes as much to good fortune as to any special genius or "manifest destiny."

Myth 4: The United States Is Responsible for Most of the Good in the World.

Americans are fond of giving themselves credit for positive international developments. President Bill Clinton believed the United States was "indispensable to the forging of stable political relations," and the late Harvard University political scientist Samuel P. Huntington thought U.S. primacy was central "to the future of freedom, democracy, open economies, and international order in the world." Journalist Michael Hirsh has gone even further, writing in his book At War With Ourselves that America's global role is "the greatest gift the world has received in many, many centuries, possibly all of recorded history." Scholarly works such as Tony Smith's America's Mission and G. John Ikenberry's Liberal Leviathan emphasize America's contribution to the spread of democracy and its promotion of a supposedly liberal world order. Given all the high-fives American leaders have given themselves, it is hardly surprising that most Americans see their country as an overwhelmingly positive force in world affairs.

Once again, there is something to this line of argument, just not enough to make it entirely accurate. The United States has made undeniable contributions to peace and stability in the world over the past century, including the Marshall Plan, the creation and management of the Bretton Woods system, its rhetorical support for the core principles of democracy and human rights, and its mostly stabilizing military presence in Europe and the Far East. But the belief that all good things flow from Washington's wisdom overstates the U.S. contribution by a wide margin.

For starters, though Americans watching Saving Private Ryan or Patton may conclude that the United States played the central role in vanquishing Nazi Germany, most of the fighting was in Eastern Europe and the main burden of defeating Hitler's war machine was borne by the Soviet Union. Similarly, though the Marshall Plan and NATO played important roles in Europe's post-World War II success, Europeans deserve at least as much credit for rebuilding their economies, constructing a novel economic and political union, and moving beyond four centuries of sometimes bitter rivalry. Americans also tend to think they won the Cold War all by themselves, a view that ignores the contributions of other anti-Soviet adversaries and the courageous dissidents whose resistance to communist rule produced the "velvet revolutions" of 1989.

Moreover, as Godfrey Hodgson recently noted in his sympathetic but clear-eyed book, The Myth of American Exceptionalism, the spread of liberal ideals is a global phenomenon with roots in the Enlightenment, and European philosophers and political leaders did much to advance the democratic ideal. Similarly, the abolition of slavery and the long effort to improve the status of women owe more to Britain and other democracies than to the United States, where progress in both areas trailed many other countries. Nor can the United States claim a global leadership role today on gay rights, criminal justice, or economic equality -- Europe's got those areas covered.

Finally, any honest accounting of the past half-century must acknowledge the downside of American primacy. The United States has been the major producer of greenhouse gases for most of the last hundred years and thus a principal cause of the adverse changes that are altering the global environment. The United States stood on the wrong side of the long struggle against apartheid in South Africa and backed plenty of unsavory dictatorships -- including Saddam Hussein's -- when short-term strategic interests dictated. Americans may be justly proud of their role in creating and defending Israel and in combating global anti-Semitism, but its one-sided policies have also prolonged Palestinian statelessness and sustained Israel's brutal occupation.

Bottom line: Americans take too much credit for global progress and accept too little blame for areas where U.S. policy has in fact been counterproductive. Americans are blind to their weak spots, and in ways that have real-world consequences. Remember when Pentagon planners thought U.S. troops would be greeted in Baghdad with flowers and parades? They mostly got RPGs and IEDs instead.

Myth 5: God Is on Our Side.

A crucial component of American exceptionalism is the belief that the United States has a divinely ordained mission to lead the rest of the world. Ronald Reagan told audiences that there was "some divine plan" that had placed America here, and once quoted Pope Pius XII saying, "Into the hands of America God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind." Bush offered a similar view in 2004, saying, "We have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom." The same idea was expressed, albeit less nobly, in Otto von Bismarck's alleged quip that "God has a special providence for fools, drunks, and the United States."

Confidence is a valuable commodity for any country. But when a nation starts to think it enjoys the mandate of heaven and becomes convinced that it cannot fail or be led astray by scoundrels or incompetents, then reality is likely to deliver a swift rebuke. Ancient Athens, Napoleonic France, imperial Japan, and countless other countries have succumbed to this sort of hubris, and nearly always with catastrophic results.

Despite America's many successes, the country is hardly immune from setbacks, follies, and boneheaded blunders. If you have any doubts about that, just reflect on how a decade of ill-advised tax cuts, two costly and unsuccessful wars, and a financial meltdown driven mostly by greed and corruption have managed to squander the privileged position the United States enjoyed at the end of the 20th century. Instead of assuming that God is on their side, perhaps Americans should heed Abraham Lincoln's admonition that our greatest concern should be "whether we are on God's side."

Given the many challenges Americans now face, from persistent unemployment to the burden of winding down two deadly wars, it's unsurprising that they find the idea of their own exceptionalism comforting -- and that their aspiring political leaders have been proclaiming it with increasing fervor. Such patriotism has its benefits, but not when it leads to a basic misunderstanding of America's role in the world. This is exactly how bad decisions get made.

America has its own special qualities, as all countries do, but it is still a state embedded in a competitive global system. It is far stronger and richer than most, and its geopolitical position is remarkably favorable. These advantages give the United States a wider range of choice in its conduct of foreign affairs, but they don't ensure that its choices will be good ones. Far from being a unique state whose behavior is radically different from that of other great powers, the United States has behaved like all the rest, pursuing its own self-interest first and foremost, seeking to improve its relative position over time, and devoting relatively little blood or treasure to purely idealistic pursuits. Yet, just like past great powers, it has convinced itself that it is different, and better, than everyone else.

International politics is a contact sport, and even powerful states must compromise their political principles for the sake of security and prosperity. Nationalism is also a powerful force, and it inevitably highlights the country's virtues and sugarcoats its less savory aspects. But if Americans want to be truly exceptional, they might start by viewing the whole idea of "American exceptionalism" with a much more skeptical eye.

Stephen M. Walt, an FP contributing editor, is Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international affairs at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. He blogs at walt.foreignpolicy.com.

John Pilger, Trafalgar Square, London 08/10/11

2011-10-13T09:14:00.000+02:00

Op 8 oktober jongstleden vond in Londen een grote anti-oorlogsdemonstratie plaats, en werd 10 jaar oorlog in Afghanistan herdacht. De Nederlandse pers vond het geen letter waard. Op onderstaande video horen we een voordracht van de veelvuldig gelauwerde journalist John Pilger, die op zijn onnavolgbare wijze de zaken weer goed weet te analyseren.

Breaking The Silence - Truth and Lies in the War on Terror
Documentaire van en met John Pilger (51 min.)

John Pilger dissects the truth and lies in the 'war on terror'. Award-winning journalist John Pilger investigates the discrepancies between American and British claims for the 'war on terror' and the facts on the ground as he finds them in Afghanistan and Washington, DC. In 2001, as the bombs began to drop, George W. Bush promised Afghanistan "the generosity of America and its allies". Now, the familiar old warlords are regaining power, religious fundamentalism is renewing its grip and military skirmishes continue routinely. In "liberated" Afghanistan, America has its military base and pipeline access, while the people have the warlords who are, says one woman, "in many ways worse than the Taliban".

In Washington, Pilger conducts a series of remarkable interviews with William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, and leading Administration officials such as Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. These people, and the other architects of the Project for the New American Century, were dismissed as 'the crazies' by the first Bush Administration in the early 90s when they first presented their ideas for pre-emptive strikes and world domination. Pilger also interviews presidential candidate General Wesley Clark, and former intelligence officers, all the while raising searching questions about the real motives for the 'war on terror'. While President Bush refers to the US attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq as two 'great victories', Pilger asks the question - victories over whom, and for what purpose? Pilger describes Afghanistan as a country "more devastated than anything I have seen since Pol Pot's Cambodia". He finds that Al-Qaida has not been defeated and that the Taliban is re-emerging. And of the "victory" in Iraq, he asks: "Is this Bush's Vietnam?"

The Real Story of How Israel Was Created

2011-10-12T23:38:00.000+02:00

AntiWar.com | By Alison Weir | 11.10.2011 | NEDERLANDS

To better understand the Palestinian bid for membership in the United Nations, it is important to understand the original 1947 U.N. action on Israel-Palestine.

The common representation of Israel’s birth is that the U.N. created Israel, that the world was in favor of this move, and that the U.S. governmental establishment supported it. All these assumptions are demonstrably incorrect.

In reality, while the U.N. General Assembly recommended the creation of a Jewish state in part of Palestine, that recommendation was non-binding and never implemented by the Security Council.

Second, the General Assembly passed that recommendation only after Israel proponents threatened and bribed numerous countries in order to gain a required two-thirds of votes.

Third, the U.S. administration supported the recommendation out of domestic electoral considerations and took this position over the strenuous objections of the State Department, the CIA, and the Pentagon.

The passage of the General Assembly recommendation sparked increased violence in the region. Over the following months the armed wing of the pro-Israel movement, which had long been preparing for war, perpetrated a series of massacres and expulsions throughout Palestine, implementing a plan to clear the way for a majority-Jewish state.

It was this armed aggression, and the ethnic cleansing of at least three-quarters of a million indigenous Palestinians, that created the Jewish state on land that had been 95 percent non-Jewish prior to Zionist immigration and that even after years of immigration remained 70 percent non-Jewish. And despite the shallow patina of legality its partisans extracted from the General Assembly, Israel was born over the opposition of American experts and of governments around the world, who opposed it on both pragmatic and moral grounds.

Let us look at the specifics.

Palestinians driven into the sea at Jaffa Harbor, late April 1948. With the land routes cut off by the Haganah, tens of thousands of the citizens of Jaffa and neighboring villages fled by boat: south to Gaza and Egypt, and north to Lebanon. Jaffa finally fell on 13 May 1948, and fewer than 4,000 of its 70,000 residents remained.
Also read Jaffa: from eminence to ethnic cleansing

Background of the U.N. Partition Recommendation

In 1947 the U.N. took up the question of Palestine, a territory that was then administered by the British.

Approximately 50 years before, a movement called political Zionism had begun in Europe. Its intention was to create a Jewish state in Palestine through pushing out the Christian and Muslim inhabitants who made up over 95 percent of its population and replacing them with Jewish immigrants.

As this colonial project grew through subsequent years, the indigenous Palestinians reacted with occasional bouts of violence; Zionists had anticipated this since people usually resist being expelled from their land. In various written documents cited by numerous Palestinian and Israeli historians, they discussed their strategy: They would either buy up the land until all the previous inhabitants had emigrated or, failing this, use violence to force them out.

When the buy-out effort was able to obtain only a few percent of the land, Zionists created a number of terrorist groups to fight against both the Palestinians and the British. Terrorist and future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin later bragged that Zionists had brought terrorism both to the Middle East and to the world at large.

Finally, in 1947 the British announced that they would be ending their control of Palestine, which had been created through the League of Nations following World War I, and turned the question of Palestine over to the United Nations.

At this time, the Zionist immigration and buyout project had increased the Jewish population of Palestine to 30 percent and land ownership from 1 percent to approximately 6 percent.

Since a founding principle of the U.N. was “self-determination of peoples,” one would have expected to the U.N. to support fair, democratic elections in which inhabitants could create their own independent country.

Instead, Zionists pushed for a General Assembly resolution in which they would be given a disproportionate 55 percent of Palestine. (While they rarely announced this publicly, their stated plan was to later take the rest of Palestine.)

U.S. Officials Oppose Partition Plan

The U.S. State Department opposed this partition plan strenuously, considering Zionism contrary to both fundamental American principles and U.S. interests.

Author Donald Neff reports that Loy Henderson, Director of the State Department’s Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs, wrote a memo to the secretary of state warning:

[S]upport by the Government of the United States of a policy favoring the setting up of a Jewish State in Palestine would be contrary to the wishes of a large majority of the local inhabitants with respect to their form of government. Furthermore, it would have a strongly adverse effect upon American interests throughout the Near and Middle East ….” [Citations.]

Henderson went on to emphasize:

At the present time the United States has a moral prestige in the Near and Middle East unequaled by that of any other great power. We would lose that prestige and would be likely for many years to be considered as a betrayer of the high principles which we ourselves have enunciated during the period of the war.

When Zionists began pushing for a partition plan through the U.N., Henderson recommended strongly against supporting their proposal. He warned that such a partition would have to be implemented by force and emphasized that it was “not based on any principle.” He went on to write:

[Partition] would guarantee that the Palestine problem would be permanent and still more complicated in the future ….

Henderson went on to emphasize:

[proposals for partition] are in definite contravention to various principles laid down in the [U.N.] Charter as well as to principles on which American concepts of Government are based. These proposals, for instance, ignore such principles as self-determination and majority rule. They recognize the principle of a theocratic racial state and even go so far in several instances as to discriminate on grounds of religion and race ….

Henderson was far from alone in making his recommendations. He wrote that his views were not only those of the entire Near East Division but were shared by “nearly every member of the Foreign Service or of the Department who has worked to any appreciable extent on Near Eastern problems.”

Henderson wasn’t exaggerating. Official after official and agency after agency opposed Zionism.

In 1947 the CIA reported that Zionist leadership was pursuing objectives that would endanger both Jews and “the strategic interests of the Western powers in the Near and Middle East.”

Truman Accedes to Pro-Israel Lobby

President Harry Truman, however, ignored this advice. Truman’s political adviser, Clark Clifford, believed that the Jewish vote and contributions were essential to winning the upcoming presidential election and that supporting the partition plan would garner that support. (Truman’s opponent, Dewey, took similar stands for similar reasons.)

Secretary of State George Marshall, the renowned World War II general and author of the Marshall Plan, was furious to see electoral considerations taking precedence over policies based on national interest. He condemned what he called a “transparent dodge to win a few votes,” which would cause “[t]he great dignity of the office of president [to be] seriously diminished.”

Marshall wrote that the counsel offered by Clifford “was based on domestic political considerations, while the problem which confronted us was international. I said bluntly that if the president were to follow Mr. Clifford’s advice and if in the elections I were to vote, I would vote against the president ….”

Henry F. Grady, who has been called “America’s top diplomatic soldier for a critical period of the Cold War,” headed a 1946 commission aimed at coming up with a solution for Palestine. Grady later wrote about the Zionist lobby and its damaging effect on U.S. national interests.

Grady argued that without Zionist pressure, the U.S. would not have had “the ill-will with the Arab states, which are of such strategic importance in our ‘cold war’ with the Soviets.” He also described the decisive power of the lobby:

I have had a good deal of experience with lobbies but this group started where those of my experience had ended …. I have headed a number of government missions but in no other have I ever experienced so much disloyalty …. [I]n the United States, since there is no political force to counterbalance Zionism, its campaigns are apt to be decisive.

Former Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson also opposed Zionism. Acheson’s biographer writes that Acheson “worried that the West would pay a high price for Israel.” Another Author, John Mulhall, records Acheson’s warning:

[T]o transform [Palestine] into a Jewish State capable of receiving a million or more immigrants would vastly exacerbate the political problem and imperil not only American but all Western interests in the Near East.

Secretary of Defense James Forrestal also tried, unsuccessfully, to oppose the Zionists. He was outraged that Truman’s Mideast policy was based on what he called “squalid political purposes,” asserting that “United States policy should be based on United States national interests and not on domestic political considerations.”

Forrestal represented the general Pentagon view when he said that “no group in this country should be permitted to influence our policy to the point where it could endanger our national security.”

A report by the National Security Council warned that the Palestine turmoil was acutely endangering the security of the United States. A CIA report stressed the strategic importance of the Middle East and its oil resources.

Similarly, George F. Kennan, the State Department’s director of policy planning, issued a top-secret document on Jan. 19, 1947, that outlined the enormous damage done to the U.S. by the partition plan (“Report by the Policy Planning Staff on Position of the United States with Respect to Palestine”).

Kennan cautioned that “important U.S. oil concessions and air base rights” could be lost through U.S. support for partition and warned that the USSR stood to gain by the partition plan.

Kermit Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt’s nephew and a legendary intelligence agent, was another who was deeply disturbed by events. He noted:

The process by which Zionist Jews have been able to promote American support for the partition of Palestine demonstrates the vital need of a foreign policy based on national rather than partisan interests …. Only when the national interests of the United States, in their highest terms, take precedence over all other considerations, can a logical, farseeing foreign policy be evolved. No American political leader has the right to compromise American interests to gain partisan votes ….

He went on:

The present course of world crisis will increasingly force upon Americans the realization that their national interests and those of the proposed Jewish state in Palestine are going to conflict. It is to be hoped that American Zionists and non-Zionists alike will come to grips with the realities of the problem.

The head of the State Department’s Division of Near Eastern Affairs, Gordon P. Merriam, warned against the partition plan on moral grounds:

U.S. support for partition of Palestine as a solution to that problem can be justified only on the basis of Arab and Jewish consent. Otherwise we should violate the principle of self-determination which has been written into the Atlantic Charter, the declaration of the United Nations, and the United Nations Charter — a principle that is deeply embedded in our foreign policy. Even a United Nations determination in favor of partition would be, in the absence of such consent, a stultification and violation of U.N.’s own charter.

Merriam added that without consent, “bloodshed and chaos” would follow, a tragically accurate prediction.

An internal State Department memorandum accurately predicted how Israel would be born through armed aggression masked as defense:

[T]he Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the U.N. …. In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside which is the cause of Arab counter-attack.

And American Vice Consul William J. Porter foresaw another outcome of the partition plan: that no Arab State would actually ever come to be in Palestine.

Pro-Israel Pressure on General Assembly Members

When it was clear that the partition recommendation did not have the required two-thirds of the U.N. General Assembly to pass, Zionists pushed through a delay in the vote. They then used this period to pressure numerous nations into voting for the recommendation. A number of people later described this campaign.

Robert Nathan, a Zionist who had worked for the U.S. government and who was particularly active in the Jewish Agency, wrote afterward, “We used any tools at hand,” such as telling certain delegations that the Zionists would use their influence to block economic aid to any countries that did not vote the right way.

Another Zionist proudly stated, “Every clue was meticulously checked and pursued. Not the smallest or the remotest of nations, but was contacted and wooed. Nothing was left to chance.”

Financier and longtime presidential adviser Bernard Baruch told France it would lose U.S. aid if it voted against partition. Top White House executive assistant David Niles organized pressure on Liberia through rubber magnate Harvey Firestone, who told the Liberian president that if Liberia did not vote in favor of partition, Firestone would revoke his planned expansion in the country. Liberia voted yes.

Latin American delegates were told that the pan-American highway construction project would be more likely if they voted yes. Delegates’ wives received mink coats (the wife of the Cuban delegate returned hers); Costa Rica’s President Jose Figueres reportedly received a blank checkbook. Haiti was promised economic aid if it would change its original vote opposing partition.

Longtime Zionist Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, along with 10 senators and Truman domestic adviser Clark Clifford, threatened the Philippines (seven bills were pending on the Philippines in Congress).

Before the vote on the plan, the Philippine delegate had given a passionate speech against partition, defending the inviolable “primordial rights of a people to determine their political future and to preserve the territorial integrity of their native land.”

He went on to say that he could not believe that the General Assembly would sanction a move that would place the world “back on the road to the dangerous principles of racial exclusiveness and to the archaic documents of theocratic governments.”

Twenty-four hours later, after intense Zionist pressure, the delegate voted in favor of partition.

The U.S. delegation to the U.N. was so outraged when Truman insisted that they support partition that the State Department director of U.N. affairs was sent to New York to prevent the delegates from resigning en masse.

On Nov. 29, 1947, the partition resolution, 181, passed. While this resolution is frequently cited, it was of limited (if any) legal impact. General Assembly resolutions, unlike Security Council resolutions, are not binding on member states. For this reason, the resolution requested that “[t]he Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation,” which the Security Council never did. Legally, the General Assembly Resolution was a “recommendation” and did not create any states.

What it did do, however, was increase the fighting in Palestine. Within months (and before Israel dates the beginning of its founding war) the Zionists had forced out 413,794 people. Zionist military units had stealthily been preparing for war before the U.N. vote and had acquired massive weaponry, some of it through a widespread network of illicit gunrunning operations in the U.S. under a number of front groups.

The U.N. eventually managed to create a temporary and very partial cease-fire. A Swedish U.N. mediator who had previously rescued thousands of Jews from the Nazis was dispatched to negotiate an end to the violence. Israeli assassins killed him, and Israel continued what it was to call its “war of independence.”

At the end of this war, through a larger military force than that of its adversaries and the ruthless implementation of plans to push out as many non-Jews as possible, Israel came into existence on 78 percent of Palestine.

At least 33 massacres of Palestinian civilians were perpetrated, half of them before a single Arab army had entered the conflict, hundreds of villages were depopulated and razed, and a team of cartographers was sent out to give every town, village, river, and hillock a new Hebrew name. All vestiges of Palestinian habitation, history, and culture were to be erased from history, an effort that almost succeeded.

Israel, which claims to be the “only democracy in the Middle East,” decided not to declare official borders or to write a constitution, a situation which continues to this day. In 1967 it took still more Palestinian and Syrian land, which is now illegally occupied territory, since the annexation of land through military conquest is outlawed by modern international law. It has continued this campaign of growth through armed acquisition and illegal confiscation of land ever since.

Individual Israelis, like Palestinians and all people, are legally and morally entitled to an array of human rights.

On the other hand, the state of Israel’s vaunted “right to exist” is based on an alleged “right” derived from might, an outmoded concept that international legal conventions do not recognize and in fact specifically prohibit.

[Detailed citations for the above information are available at "The History of Israel-U.S. Relations, Part One."]

Read more by Alison Weir

American Taxpayers Subsidize Israel’s Prosperity – August 31st, 2011
Israeli Video Games in Gaza – August 23rd, 2011
Israel Lobby Dominates Congress, Media Covers it Up – August 10th, 2011
Critical Connections: Egypt, the US, and Israel – February 4th, 2011
Israel’s Flotilla ‘Investigation’ – June 17th, 2010

Reportage: De Israëllobby in Brussel

2011-10-10T09:41:00.001+02:00

More than 420 European Union ministers arrived in Jerusalem for the opening of the European Friends of Israel’s Second Policy Conference on Saturday, 5 February 2011.

VPRO Radio 1 | Tijn Sadée, Wereldomroep | 09.10.2011

Vorige week steunde het Europese Parlement het verzoek van de Palestijnen om lid van de VN te worden. Israël zet in Brussel alle zeilen bij om Europarlementariërs en lidstaten aan zijn zijde te krijgen. Vrienden van Israël in het Europese Parlement worden “gefêteerd” en critici van Israel worden bewerkt. Er wordt gelobbyd bij het leven. Brussels correspondent Tijn Sadée van de Wereldomroep begaf zich achter de schermen.

Met o.a. David Cronin.

TRANSLATE

Israel’s Jewishness: Precondition for Palestinian Statehood

2011-10-08T07:51:00.001+02:00

Alakhbar English | By Jonathan Cook | 07.10.2011 | NEDERLANDS

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a Likud party meeting at the Knesset, in Jerusalem. (Photo: REUTERS - Darren Whiteside)

Nazareth - Israel’s relentless efforts to foil a Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations are linked to its increasingly intransigent demand that it be recognized as a Jewish state.

By denying the Palestinians the UN route while at the same time insisting as part of peace talks that they acknowledge Israel’s Jewish character, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is driving the final nail into the coffin of the peace process and the pursuit of the two-state solution.

Israel’s insistence on recognition of its Jewishness is a recent addition to its list of final-status issues to be resolved with the Palestinians in a negotiated settlement. But Netanyahu has rapidly forced it to the top of Israel’s agenda, making it all but a precondition for his entering talks.

After months of pressuring Israel to withdraw the requirement, the US administration of Barack Obama finally appears to be relenting. The White House is now reported to be insisting behind the scenes that the Palestinians recognize Israel’s Jewishness. The US has also promised to block the Palestinians if they continue to push for statehood at the UN.

The rest of the international community, represented by the Quartet — a body overseeing the peace process that comprises the US, the European Union, the UN, and Russia — are reported to be following suit.

In a possible sign of the international consensus quickly forming behind Israel’s position, Spain last week recognized for the first time Israel as the “homeland of the Jewish people.” Israel is hoping that the decision by Madrid, traditionally regarded as supportive of the Palestinian cause, might lead other European states to follow suit.

As recently as last Saturday, Netanyahu declared that a speech denouncing Israel by Iranian cleric Ali Khamenei had added to his determination to insist on a Palestinian security guarantee recognising Israel’s Jewishness.

In line with his statement, he formally accepted a peace proposal Monday, put forward by the Quartet, attempting to dissuade Mahmoud Abbas from pursuing statehood through the UN. The US has promised to veto the Palestinian application if it cannot muster enough votes against it in the Security Council.

Despite a declaration that Netanyahu had accepted the Quartet terms “without preconditions," the Israeli media reported that he had privately appended several demands, including recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and a Palestinian declaration of an end to the conflict. An Israeli minister described Israel’s position as “yes, but.”

In fact, the Quartet’s peace proposal had already been severely watered down because of Israel’s known intransigence on the issue of recognition of its Jewishness. Reuters reported last week that the Quartet had been forced to abandon a much more substantive formula for reviving peace talks because the recognition issue was considered insurmountable.

The final tepid statement released by the Quartet, similar to previous failed peace-making proposals, calls for preparatory talks between Israel and the Palestinians within a month leading to an agreement by the end of 2012.

Martin Indyk, a former US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, observed of the new diplomatic stalemate, “As well as being wrapped around the settlements freeze axle, we now seem to be wrapped around the ‘Jewish state’ axle too.”

In his speech to the UN last month, Netanyahu referred to the “Jewish state” 10 times and concluded, “The core of the conflict has always been and unfortunately remains the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize a Jewish state in any border.”

Although Netanyahu and his officials have indicated that Palestinian recognition is a precondition for talks, Abbas has so far stood his ground. Last year he declared: “Israel can call itself whatever it wants. We don't have to recognize those definitions.”

Palestinian objections meant that until recently, Washington had worked hard to keep Israel’s demand off the table. But that appears to be changing.

In May, Obama became the first US president to formally endorse Israel’s definition as “a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people.” Two months later, the New York Times revealed that the White House was secretly working “to resume negotiations on the basis of the 1967 lines and – for the first time in Mideast peacemaking – spell out international expectations that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state."

Israel’s demand for recognition of its Jewishness has become so entwined with the peace process, it is sometimes forgotten that it was first raised at the diplomatic level only four years ago.

The issue was not mentioned in the Oslo accords, signed in 1993, that effectively initiated the two-state process, or at Camp David, the 2000 summit that failed to reach an agreement on the establishment of a Palestinian state. At that point, the final-status issues were settlements, borders, refugees, and Jerusalem.

Analysts have tended to assume that the demand for recognition is simply a tactical ploy by Netanyahu to block talks with the Palestinians he does not want.

But it was in fact one of his predecessors, Ehud Olmert – widely regarded as committed to creating a Palestinian state, even if a very limited one – who first raised this condition as part of the peace process. Olmert introduced the demand at the Annapolis talks in late 2007, under US President George Bush’s stewardship.

It was a strange stipulation. Nation-states usually want recognition of their borders and territorial sovereignty, not their ethnic or religious character. That is precisely what the Palestinians did back in 1993 by recognizing Israel in the Oslo accords.

So why did Olmert suddenly impose this new requirement? Neither Egypt nor Jordan, which signed earlier peace agreements with Israel, were asked to do the same.

The reason appears to be that, as Olmert believed he was moving closer to an agreement on partial statehood for the Palestinians, his officials advised that recognition would achieve important strategic gains.

First, under the cover of a seemingly modest request, he would force the Palestinians to rule out any right of return to Israel for the millions of Palestinian refugees.

But Olmert was also persuaded that it would offer an important additional advantage related to the 1.5 million so-called “Israeli Arabs” – Palestinians who remained on their land in the 1948 war and have Israeli citizenship.

In recent years, the Arab minority’s future in Israel has moved to the center of Israeli discussions about the peace process. This community, a fifth of Israel’s population, is seen as a strategic threat in two ways.

Avigdor Lieberman, the far-right foreign minister, explained the first danger in a speech in August 2011, shortly after Abbas had again refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Lieberman said Abbas’s rejection revealed that “The real intention of the Palestinians is not to establish a state that will live in peace alongside Israel but rather the establishment of a state free of Jews in [the West Bank] and the hostile takeover of Israel from within.”

His meaning was clarified by the Jerusalem Post newspaper, which explained that Israeli officials were insisting on recognition to prevent the Arab minority making “irredentist” claims after a peace deal or forging political ties with the new Palestinian state next door.

Such moves would be ruled out in advance if the Palestinian leadership had acknowledged that Israel was a Jewish state.

The second threat relates to the problematic idea that Israel is both a Jewish and a democratic state. The Arab minority has contested this claim, becoming far more vocal over the past decade in demanding political reform. They want equality enshrined in law and Israel’s transformation into a what they call “state of all its citizens.”

If the Palestinian leaders in the occupied territories can be made to sign up to recognition of Israel’s Jewishness, they would give a stamp of approval to Israel taking whatever measures were necessary against the Arab minority to preserve the state’s Jewish character.

At a minimum that would require continuing to deny equality legislation and to preserve discriminatory immigration policies. The Law of Return, which allows only Jews automatic rights to immigrate, would remain inviolable, for example.

A bill asserting that Israel is a Jewish state is currently before the Israeli parliament. It would mean the state’s Jewishness would trump democratic principles should the two clash, and Jewish religious law would also become the “inspiration” for lawmakers and the courts. It would also revoke Arabic as an official language and validate the existing practice of almost-strict communal separation between Jews and Arabs.

But 'defensive' measures to protect Israel’s Jewishness could also involve far more draconian moves, such as banning the minority’s political parties, downgrading the minority from citizens to guest workers, changing the borders to move densely populated Arab areas into a new Palestinian state, or even implementing full-scale expulsion.

At stake, according to Palestinian commentators, is also a moral issue that affects all Palestinians wherever they live.

Ahmad Samih Khalidi, a former Palestinian negotiator, explained the wider significance of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state: “If these lands rightfully comprise the Jewish homeland, then the Arab presence there becomes historically aberrant and contingent; the Palestinians effectively become historic interlopers and trespassers – a transient presence on someone else’s national soil.”

Brutal eviction of Palestinian family in Jaffa caught on tape

2011-10-08T07:28:00.001+02:00

IMEU | By Mondoweiss | 07.10.2011 | NEDERLANDS

An Israeli-Arab family from Jaffa said Thursday they plan to file a lawsuit against the police, after officers used what appears to be excessive force to evict them from a south Tel Aviv house they were squatting in on Tuesday. In an amateur video taken at the scene, a group of YASSAM riot police can be seen wrestling with Sameer Kassem, 34, as he holds his four-year-old daughter in his hands: The video shows police kicking and punching Kassem while he lies on the ground, and one officer puts his sister, a Muslim woman wearing a veil, in a headlock and throws her to the ground. No social workers or female police are present at the scene, even though it constituted the eviction of a family with young children ... Sameer said he and his family have been homeless since May when his mother, who used to help him with his expenses, died and he could no longer pay rent. He said that he, his wife, and their five children moved to the vacant house on Salameh Street about two weeks ago after someone set their tent at the Shtayim park on fire.

SP: illegale nederzettingen mogen blijven

2011-10-07T14:55:00.000+02:00

"Op termijn zal er een enorme landruil nodig zijn om de steeds grotere nederzettingen te compenseren aan de Palestijnen."
(Harry van Bommel, 20 juli 2011)

SP delegatie poseert opgewekt in de illegale nederzetting Ma’ale Adumim
met in het midden de "loco-burgemeester" Boris Grossman (juli 2011).

In juli dit jaar bezochten Emile Roemer, Harry van Bommel en fractiemedewerker Guido van Leemput van de Socialistische Partij o.a. de illegale joodse kolonie Ma’ale Adumim op de Westelijke Jordaanoever, om zich te 'informeren' over de situatie. Zij vonden het blijkbaar belangrijk om ook de 'argumenten' van de bezetter te horen - alsof de bezetting zelf nog niet erg genoeg is. Het is de overtuiging van de SP dat de door de internationale gemeenschap veroordeelde joodse nederzettingen op de Westoever mogen blijven, en om dat te bewerkstelligen is er landruil "nodig" - en niet de verwezenlijking van de uitspraak van het Internationaal Strafhof en de uitvoering van de diverse VN-resoluties.

De door Israël en de VS gesuggereerde landruil komt er in de praktijk op neer dat het ene gestolen gebied wordt verruild met het andere gestolen gebied. En dat ene gebied is nog veel minder waard ook. Het biedt de zionisten tevens een uitgelezen kans om hun "Joodse staat" verder etnisch te zuiveren. Met recht of "compenseren" heeft dat niets te maken.

Het ruilen van land voor nederzettingen is formeel net zo illegaal als de nederzettingen zelf. Meer informatie over de "land swap" ideeën en de nadelige consequenties dat dit voor de Palestijnen heeft o.a. hier.

Veranderde standpunten

In de loop der tijd zijn de standpunten van de SP over het 'conflict' danig gewijzigd. Begrijpelijk is het wanneer standpunten zich aanpassen aan nieuwe situaties. Maar dat is hier niet het geval. De standpunten van de SP zijn steeds meer in het voordeel van Israël, en in het nadeel van de Palestijnen komen te liggen.

2000:
Het sturen van internationale waarnemers, het nemen van economische maatregelen en het instellen van een wapenembargo zijn de zaken die op dit moment in beeld komen omdat de regering van Israël zich niks van de internationale kritiek op haar militaire optreden in de bezette gebieden aantrekt. (persbericht)

2002:
De SP is van mening dat Nederland verregaande stappen moet ondernemen om Israël tot terugtrekking uit de bezette gebieden te bewegen. Het Associatieverdrag van de EU met Israël biedt de verdragsverplichting over te gaan tot opschorting als Israël de mensenrechten schendt.
Voorts heeft Nederland overeenkomsten van militaire aard. Deze moeten worden beëindigd. Zowel voor waar het de export van militaire producten náár Israël, als de import van militaire producten uit Israël betreft. (persbericht)

2002:
De Europese Unie moet Israël isoleren door middel van een wapenembargo, het bevriezen van diplomatieke betrekkingen en zonodig zelfs het afsnijden van verkeersverbindingen. (persbericht, verwijderd van sp.nl)

In 2004, ook na een bezoek aan de bezette Palestijnse gebieden meende de 'socialisten' nog dat "de nederzettingen ... moeten juist verwijnen".

Anno 2011 zijn de pleidooien voor sancties en wapenembargo's verdwenen. De nederzettingen moeten niet meer verdwijnen, maar alleen niet meer uitgebreid geworden. Net als de andere pro-Israël partijen. De SP bepleit geen recht meer voor de Palestijnen, maar 'compensatie', waarbij gestolen land met gestolen land geruild zou worden - in het voordeel van de bezetter.

Gerelateerd:
» SP en de Palestijnen
» SP 'heeft niets' met Gaza-vloot - maar dat moet geheim blijven

TRANSLATE

Vrienden

2011-10-06T00:42:00.000+02:00

Premier Jan Peter Balkenende en de Amerikaanse ambassadeur Roland Arnall, een miljardair die met zijn bedrijf Ameriquest - de grootste hypotheekverstrekker in de VS - leningen en hypotheken verstrekte in de vorm van wurgcontracten met misleidende informatie en agressieve verkoopmethoden, waar vooral zieken en bejaarden het slachtoffer van werden. Daarvoor werd hij later in 33 staten vervolgd. Naar goed Amerikaans gebruik heeft hij de zaken met 325 miljoen dollar afgekocht. Zijn ambassadeurspost had hij van president George W. Bush gekocht met 12 miljoen dollar campagnegeld.

Sigmund Freud: "Palestine could never become a Jewish state"

2011-10-01T11:36:00.001+02:00

Freud Museum London | Februari 1930 | NEDERLANDS

In February 1930 Freud was asked, as a distinguished Jew, to contribute to a petition condemning Arab riots of 1929, in which over a hundred Jewish settlers were killed. This was his reply:

Letter to the Keren Hajessod (Dr. Chaim Koffler)

Vienna: 26 February 1930

Dear Sir,

I cannot do as you wish. I am unable to overcome my aversion to burdening the public with my name, and even the present critical time does not seem to me to warrant it. Whoever wants to influence the masses must give them something rousing and inflammatory and my sober judgement of Zionism does not permit this. I certainly sympathise with its goals, am proud of our University in Jerusalem and am delighted with our settlement's prosperity. But, on the other hand, I do not think that Palestine could ever become a Jewish state, nor that the Christian and Islamic worlds would ever be prepared to have their holy places under Jewish care. It would have seemed more sensible to me to establish a Jewish homeland on a less historically-burdened land. But I know that such a rational viewpoint would never have gained the enthusiasm of the masses and the financial support of the wealthy. I concede with sorrow that the baseless fanaticism of our people is in part to be blamed for the awakening of Arab distrust. I can raise no sympathy at all for the misdirected piety which transforms a piece of a Herodian wall into a national relic, thereby offending the feelings of the natives.

Now judge for yourself whether I, with such a critical point of view, am the right person to come forward as the solace of a people deluded by unjustified hope.

Your obediant servant,

Freud

The Impossible Ideology of Free Trade

2011-09-30T22:02:00.001+02:00

Unless we can create a perfect world, says David Donovan, truly free trade is an unattainable dream and a dangerous ideology that is usually applied to satisfy the goals of the rich and powerful.

Truthout | By David Donovan | 30.09.2011 | NEDERLANDS

Why everything you think you know about economics is probably wrong (Part 2)

Absolute and comparative advantage – the faulty premise behind the ideology of free trade

If there has been one element of modern life that has been underpinned by classical economic concepts it is the notion of “free trade”. Indeed, the world community spends a lot of time discussing removing tariffs, subsidies, trade barriers and other forms of protectionism. Under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation, the world community has been battling, unsuccessfully, since 2001 under the Doha round to get agreement on removing trade barriers. Indeed, Australia was established, largely, as a way of establishing a continental free trade zone.

And if there is a powerful economic ideology that has been taken up and championed by powerful nations, transnational corporations and neo-liberal right-wing think tanks everywhere, it is free trade — which should, of course, make everyone else extremely suspicious.

The economic concept underlying free trade is the notion of absolute or comparative advantage, which is such a fundamental notion of modern economics it is taught in high school Economics syllabuses straight after the obligatory supply and demand graphs. The concept is that a nation is better to produce those goods in which it has an absolute advantage — or in other words, can produce more cheaply than other nations – then devoting resources to producing things it makes less efficiently. The notion extends even where a nation cannot produce anything more cheaply other nations, in which case the law of comparative advantage states that it would be better to devote its resources to the production of whatever it produces more efficiently than anything else, or in other words, the products in which it has a comparative advantage.

Taking this theory to its logically absurd conclusion, under this theory, since a nation would presumably be able to produce one product better than anything else, they should devote all their resources to producing that product or commodity, whatever it might be. In Australia’s case, maybe we would commit all our productive capacity to digging up coal — and, indeed, building a quarry economy is something Australia has been committed to since at least 1996.

The basic underlying premise, that countries, companies and, indeed, individuals should devote themselves to doing what they do best, and trade with others for what they do relatively poorly, is logical — within reason. However, anyone with a teaspoon-full of common-sense knows that the concept of absolute and comparative advantage has more holes in it than a colander. Indeed, since the concept arose a couple of hundred years ago, it has been picked apart and refined by economists more, perhaps, than any other.

Firstly, the concept is built on economic assumptions that do not, will not and could not possibly ever exist in the real world or, indeed, our universe. It is predicated on the notion of efficient markets with rational participants that, as explained in part 1, ‘The Art of Economics‘, denies our essential humanity. In particular, it assumes that all factors of production and resources are perfectly and equally mobile — which is blatantly idiotic. In Australia’s case, it would suggest that coal mines can be made to instantly appear with all the requisite infrastructure and that you could could send everyone to work in them without them complaining, for instance, that dry weather is bad for their skin and, frankly, they don’t want to live in Moranbah. This assumption is important to notions of competitive advantage because, say, coal became fossil fuel non grata in the world community and wasn’t worth any money all of a sudden (as is likely) then you would need to be able to transfer all your productive capacity to something else pretty quickly or else your workers would earn no money and start dying of malnutrition, which is not a an economic concept that resonates in the wider community.

Secondly, another logical conclusion is that each country would specialise in whatever it was most efficient at — in which case the world would need to get by with a maximum of around 200 products. Not likely.

Thirdly, the theory ignores scale. Now, say a small Caribbean nation has a competitive advantage in producing, say, bananas, and devotes a lot of its resources to producing bananas, which it can do cheaper than any other nation. Unfortunately, another vast and powerful nation, say the United States, also produces bananas and can produce them in such quantity that it can afford to sell them around the world for less than the Caribbean nation until the little nation’s producers all go broke and the industry dies. Cue malnutrition. And, of course, the bigger country will then charge what it wants and make super profits, which sort of defeats the whole purpose. (This is essentially what Woolworths and Coles do in the Australian market.) The WTO spends much of its time trying to stop countries, like the EU and the US, dumping subsidised agricultural products on world markets and thereby killing off small nations’ export industries. They are usually unsuccessful. Of course, poor nations wanting the US and EU to remove agricultural subsidies is the prime sticking point in the Doha round of the WTO negotiations.

The underlying reason why these countries will never allow their agricultural industries to face true competition is due to entrenched vested interests and, more importantly, as insurance against war and serious international disputation — which is the other reason why truly free trade is an unattainable pipe dream.

The truth is that unless we can eradicate war and disputes between nations, all nations have a strategic interest in protecting vital industries, such as manufacturing, agriculture and the production of key resources. You never know when there will be a war, blockade or a disputation in which a nation may not be able to trade with the nations that produce, say, cars – or tanks – or iron ore or wheat most efficiently. Therefore, preserving the expert knowledge base and ability to expand production quickly – or in other words, retaining a generalised productive capacity in all essential areas – is vital to the national interest. Removing a nation’s ability in any strategic area is, ergo, a dangerous strategic liability, irrespective of any concerns about economic inefficiency.

Free trade is a popular ideology amongst the rich and powerful in our society, because it enables them to produce their products wherever they can do so most efficiently (usually meaning where they can pay their workers the least) and ensures they can ship the product without paying tariffs. For nations and individuals, however, it has vast dangers and its record is littered with examples of where attempts to reach the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow has proven to be a disastrous mistake. Australia’s 2004 “free trade” agreement with the United States – which removed very few barriers for Australian producers but worked largely to protect America’s economic interests in such areas a copyright law and intellectual property – is a solemn reminder of the dangers.

The truth is, free trade is highly desirable and would, of course, improve economic efficiency, but is also entirely impossible – and rather risky – in the real world.

De Israëli's stelen, branden en vernielen waterbronnen

2011-09-30T13:47:00.001+02:00

dewereldmorgen.be | By Frank Roels | 29.09.2011 | TRANSLATE

Op de Westelijke Jordaanoever en in Oost-Jeruzalem breken Israëli's Palestijnse woningen af, branden ze boomgaarden en velden plat en vernielen ze waterbronnen en reservoirs. Dit staat in het recente rapport (27/9) van drie VN rapporteurs, w.o. onze landgenoot Olivier De Schutter. De Palestijnen moeten zelf de rekening betalen voor het afbreken van hun huis, plus een boete wegens "illegaal bouwen"

De cijfers gelden voor de periode begin 2011 tot augustus 2011. Zowat 1500 Palestijnen werden gedwongen verjaagd, zonder compensaties. Sommige families woonden hier sedert decennia. 140 woningen werden vernield en 79 velden of kwekerijen. De vernietiging van 12 drinkwaterbronnen en 20 reservoirs treffen tienduizenden Palestijnen. Het aantal verjaagde personen is hoger dan over het hele jaar 2010. Herders worden afgesneden van water voor hun kudden. Er zijn plaatsen waar bijna wekelijks brand wordt gesticht door joodse kolonisten, terwijl de Israëlische politie en leger toekijken.

De drie VN rapporteurs - Raquel Rolnik, Catarina de Albuquerque en Olivier De Schutter - laten er geen twijfel over bestaan dat het gaat om criminele daden van 'de Israëlische autoriteiten', die het humanitaire recht en de mensenrechten schenden (Article 54 of the 1977 Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I). 'Deze acties moeten onmiddellijk stoppen'. Het Israëlisch leger is één van de daders, maar ook joodse kolonisten. Criminele daden tegen Palestijnen en Palestijnse eigendommen gepleegd door Israëlische kolonisten ('settlers'), moeten vervolgd worden aan de hand van een onafhankelijke, onpartijdige, doelmatige en tijdige procedure.

Ethnische zuivering

Wat de Israëlische historicus Ilan Pappé in 2006 omschreef als de "Ethnic cleansing of Palestine", gaat dus sedert jaren onverminderd verder. Het doel - dat Israëlische politici reeds vroeger uitspraken - is het verdrijven, wegpesten, uithongeren, gevangen zetten, en desnoods vermoorden van de Palestijnse bevolking (elke week worden er wel een paar doodgeschoten, nu ook vanuit onbemande drones - zoals op 18/8 een jongen van 12 in Gaza; en minstens tienduizend zitten in Israëlische gevangenissen, waaronder vrouwen, politieke leiders en verkozen parlementsleden). Dat is de voorwaarde die premier Nethanyahu en Tel-Aviv stellen aan de 'vredesonderhandelingen': dat zuivering, diefstal en branden ongestraft mogen voortgaan, terwijl tot in het oneindige gepalaverd wordt in Genève of Washington. Als het nog een tijdje doorgaat, blijft voor de Palestijnse staat geen grondgebied meer over, of alleen wat woestijn en rotsen, ingesloten tussen kolonies en wegen 'for Jews only'.

Alle vergelijkingen gaan mank

Wat kunnen we hiertegen ondernemen? Waarmee kan het lot van de Palestijnen vergeleken worden, en hoe wordt daartegen opgetreden? Ik heb WO II meegemaakt, en ik kom in de verleiding het gedrag van de Duitse militairen te vergelijken met het optreden vandaag van het IDF (Israeli Defense Forces, nvdr) tegen de Palestijnen. Weliswaar heeft Israël geen gaskamers.

Ik weet dat deze vergelijking sommigen zou schokken, zoals ik geschokt ben door de feiten over de Israëlische onmenselijkheid. En alle vergelijkingen gaan mank. Neen, Tel-Aviv organiseert geen holocaust. Een meer eigentijdse vergelijking: Libië is half plat gebombardeerd 'om de bevolking te beschermen'. Het kan meer dan een jaar duren voor de olieproductie weer normaal is, zeggen de autoriteiten (en die olieproductie is natuurlijk een prioriteit - we spreken niet over ziekenhuizen, scholen, universiteiten, woningen,...).

Moeten we, in navolging van het geval Libië, voorstellen om Tel-Aviv te bombarderen, of Haifa (waar vroegere vrienden van mij wonen), of de kerncentrales en atoombomreserves? Toen de VS tijdens de Viëtnamoorlog de hoofdstad Hanoi bombardeerde, heb ik ook geschreven: moeten we nu New York bombarderen? Het is natuurlijk een symbolische, maar wel een morele vraag.

Veel eenvoudiger èn doelmatiger zou het zijn als in de EU enkele landen een geheime diplomatieke mail zouden sturen naar hun Israëlische ambassadeurs, met de mededeling dat vanaf volgende week alle kapitaalsoverdrachten naar Israël zullen geblokkeerd worden. Dat kan, met één toets van de moderne IT. Het is al toegepast voor andere landen.

Israëlische blokkade van Gaza onwettig

Een vijfkoppig panel van VN rapporteurs heeft op 13/9 de toestand in Gaza onderzocht vanuit wettelijk standpunt. Ze zeggen dat de "collectieve bestraffing" van de bevolking "een flagrante overtreding is van de internationale rechten van de mens en van het humanitair recht". Ook het Internationale Rode Kruis had de blokkade al onwettig genoemd.

Ofschoon we al wisten dat de levensvoorwaarden voor de bewoners van Gaza ‘ondraaglijk’ zijn (woord van Obama in zijn mooie speech in Cairo – hoe lang is dat geleden…), doet de lezing van dit verslag mij onpasselijk worden. Zo is meer dan 9/10 van het drinkwater in Gaza vervuild, doordat Israël de nodige materialen en energie voor het zuiveringsstation tegenhoudt. De enige ondergrondse waterreserve van Gaza is in gevaar. Leden van het VN panel zijn o.m. Richard Falk, María Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona, Catarina de Albuquerque, Anand Grover en Olivier De Schutter.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/un-independent-panel-rules...

PS: het rapport over de Westelijke Jordaanoever en Jeruzalem is nog niet doorgedrongen tot onze kwaliteitskranten. The New York Times, Haaretz, De Morgen, De Standaard: nooit van gehoord (29/9).

Externe links

» VN bericht van rapporteurs Olivier De Schutter, Raquel Rolnik, Catarina de Albuquerque
» VN over de Palestijnse gebieden bezet door Israël
» http://www.ohchr.org/EN/countries/MENARegion/Pages/PSIndex.aspx
» VN panel over Gaza 13/9
» http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=11363&LangID=E
» Ibrahim, 12, getroffen door Israëlische drone rakket
» http://www.palestinechronicle.com/
» Olijfbomen vernietigen, leger laat begaan, maar schiet op Palestijnen